The Apex court reaffirmed that the landlord’s receipt of rent alone does not constitute a surrender of the right to terminate the contract.
In a complaint brought by the landlord for an eviction, the tenant argued that, according to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, there was no lawful termination of the tenancy. The trial judge agreed with the defendant and dismissed the case. The Karnataka High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff or the landlord according to Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act. In light of Section 111(a) of the Act, it was ruled that the length of the lease would be determined by the passage of time and that a Notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act is not necessary.
The apex court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated, “In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi’s case, the High Court held that the mere acceptance of rent by the landlord after the expiration of the lease term would not constitute a waiver of the termination of the lease.”
It was determined that, upon expiration of the lease term, no additional termination of the tenancy by sending a statutory notice to terminate a lease that has already expired is required.