The Indian legislation that regulates the transfer of property between living persons is the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The legislation specifies provisions regarding what constitutes a transfer and the conditions attached to it. The legislation was enforced in India on 1 July 1882. A transfer of property follows the rule of Nemo dat quod non habet, meaning that the transferee can transferor can transfer only those interests which he himself has to the transferee. The act of transferring property from one person to another, whether in present or in the future, is known as a transfer of property under the Transfer of Property Act. By transferring property, the transferor transfers all rights in the property, according to Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. There are several ways to transfer property ownership: 1) relinquishment 2) sale 3) gift; and temporarily by way of 4) mortgage 5) lease and, 6) leave and license agreement.
People, on the whole, prefer to own their own properties rather than pay rent on someone else’s. Nonetheless, a lease is an alternative option that provides immovable properties for temporary use and can provide benefits such as low initial payments, tax savings, and low risk, among others. In simple terms, a Lease is a type of contract between these parties for a specific amount of time. When the owner of the immovable property gives his property to another person for a set amount of time and a contract is signed between them, this relationship between the owner and their lessees occurs. Thus, this contract contains terms such as the rent amount, the rate at which it is collected, the length of the lease, the purpose of the lease, and so on. The legal definition of the term “lease” can be found in Sections 105 to 117 of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882. ‘A lease is a contractual agreement in which the user (lessee) pays the owner (lessor) for the use of an asset,’ according to Stickney and Weil. On the other hand, ‘A lease is a contract between the lessor and the lessee for the possession and profits of land, etc., on one side and reimbursement by rent or other considerations on the other,’ according to Mulla. Another definition by Merriam-Webster defines a lease as a contract in which one transfers real land, equipment, or facilities for a set period of time and for a set rent.
We can see from the definitions above that a lease is nothing more than a contract between a lessor and a lessee for a specific amount of time specified in the contract. The terms lease, lessor, lessee, premium, and rent are defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882.’ A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy the such property for a specific period of time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service, or any other thing of value to be rendered,’ according to the definition. A lease is a contract that creates a right to use the immovable property for a set period of time and for a fee, subject to the terms and circumstances set forth in the lease.
Rights And Liabilities Of Lessor
Both the lessor and the lessee have rights and duties under Section 108. These rights and obligations are subject to a contrary contract, which means that if the lessor and lessee agree to be governed by their own terms and conditions for the duration of the lease, their respective rights and responsibilities are decided by that agreement. In this instance, Section 108 does not apply. Similarly, if they have a local custom or usage that governs their rights and obligations, that custom or usage will regulate their relationship during the lease’s term, and Section 108 will not apply. Contracts that are in violation of Section 108 are expressly permitted. It places no limitations on the parties’ ability to enter into a contract and specify their own terms, conditions, and limits. Section 108’s first three clauses (a), (b), and (c) deal with the lessor’s obligations. There are no particular rights of the lessor in this clause, but the liabilities of the lessee are treated as similar rights of the lessor.
Rights Of A lessor
● Right To Accretions
If any further accretion, accumulation, or addition is created in the property during the tenancy period or throughout the life of the lease, the lessor is entitled to such property. The addition can be natural or at the lessee’s expense, but the lessee must deliver the title to the lessor at the end of the tenancy time.
● Right To Collect Rent
The lessor has the right to collect rent or any other form of remuneration from the tenant as specified in the contract’s terms and conditions without interruption.
- The Lessor has the right to seize the property from the Lessee if the Lessee violates any of the Lease deed’s terms.
- On the expiration of the lease, the Lessor has the right to reclaim the property from the Lessee.
- The Lessor is entitled to collect from the Lessee the amount of damage caused to the leased property.
- Seek damages from the Lessee for failing to vacate the premises after the Lease Deed has expired.
Liabilities Of Lessor
● Duty Of Disclosure
The lessor is obligated to report to the lessee any material flaw in the property that the lessor is aware of but the lessee is unaware of and that the lessee could not detect with ordinary care. There are two types of faults: those that are obvious and those that are not, i.e., latent defects. Because latent faults are impossible to detect with ordinary care, the lessor is obligated to disclose them. When faults affect the property’s right to enjoyment or use, the responsibility of disclosure is especially crucial. As a result, the lessor is obligated to reveal any hidden problems that may impede the lessee’s ability to use the property. This section makes no provisions for the title, simply for the peaceful enjoyment of the property. As a result, the lessor has no obligation to disclose a title deficiency.
● Duty To Give Possession
On the lessee’s request, the lessor is obligated to give him possession of the property. This clause makes the lessor legally responsible for putting the lessee in possession of the leased property. However, the lessor’s obligation to deliver possession comes only when the lessee makes a request in this regard. When a lessor fails to deliver possession to the lessee, the lessee may sue for possession. If the lessee has already paid rent, he has the right to claim damages as well as the amount paid in rent. The lessee may repudiate the lease if he only receives ownership of a portion of the lease property. However, if he wants to keep that section, he must pay rent for the portion that is occupied. If the leased property is in the custody of a third party, the lessee may sue both the lessor and the third party. It was determined that if a tenant evacuated the premises but did not transfer possession to the landlord until the security deposit was refunded, the tenant was obligated to pay the rent for the period he had possession, whether or not he used the premises. He has a separate recourse to reclaim the money.
● Covenant For Quiet Enjoyment
The lessor is deemed to have entered into an agreement with the lessee that if the lessee pays the rent reserved under the lease and executes the contracts binding on the lessee, he will be able to hold the property without interruption throughout the duration of the lease. The lessor has the responsibility of ensuring that the lessee is not harmed by him or anybody else throughout the lease time. This section treats the quiet enjoyment covenant as a covenant that runs with the land and can be enforced by the lessee’s assignee against the lessor and his assignee. When a lessee’s tranquil enjoyment has been disrupted, he is entitled to damages equal to the current worth of the future profit he has been deprived of.
● Duty To Observe Terms Of Lease
The provisions of a lease for an industrial plot banned plot transfers, changes in the company’s memorandum and articles in response to a change in its capital structure, or changes in promoters in order to settle the business’s debts or the sale of the firm in liquidation or merger. Only with the permission of the lessor could something like this be done. The company’s memorandum and articles of incorporation, as well as its capital structure, were updated. The court ruled that this amounted to a transfer of the company’s property, rights, and authorities. The lessor corporation’s demand for a transfer fee was found to be proper under the terms of the lease.
Right And Liability Of Lessee
● Right To Enjoy Accretions To The Property
During the tenure of the lease, if there any accession, i.e., addition or improvement is made to the property then the lease shall be deemed to be comprised of such accession. If an addition is made to the land, it will form part of the demise of the lessee. The lessee acquires a right to enjoy, as it becomes part of the property. However, ownership over such accession shall not be claimed. The lessee is supposed to surrender it to the lessor at the end of the term.
● Right To Revoke Lease In The Event Of Destruction Of Property By Fire, Etc
The basic goal of establishing a lease is to give the lessee the right to use the property. If any material component of the property is entirely destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purposes for which it was let owing to any irresistible force, the lessee has the right to escape the lease and it shall, at the lessee’s discretion, be void. The clause gives the lessee a choice, and if the lessee does not use it, the lease does not immediately end, and the tenant’s right of occupation under the tenancy contract continues to exist between the parties. The entire destruction of the subject of the lease, i.e., the building/superstructure, as well as the destruction of the underlying land in a lease deed, will influence leasehold rights. However, when a godown that was granted on the lease was destroyed by fire but the lessee did not choose for declaration of the lease deed as void, he would not be regarded to have exercised his rights under Section 108 (e), because even though the godown was destroyed, the land on. The lessee has the right to terminate the lease, refuse to reconstruct the premises, and recover the costs from the lessor. If the lessee does not break the lease and builds new premises on the land notwithstanding the lessor’s objections, he will not be able to claim tenancy in those premises if the lease was only for premises and not for land. Even if, with the exception of a small section of the structure’s wall that was leased along with the site, all of the remaining portions of the structure fell down and the structure did not exist, there would be no lease frustration and the landlord-tenant relationship would not come to an end. Again, without the authorization of the landlord, the tenant is not permitted to construct a superstructure on the property, and the landlord is allowed to obtain a ruling of a mandatory injunction ordering the tenant’s structure to be demolished. The lease-avoidance notice takes effect immediately once it is served, and Section 106 does not apply. However, if the lessee fails to surrender unoccupied possession, he will be liable for rent on an implied tenancy.
● Right To Repair Property And Claim Costs In The Event Of Its Neglect By The Lessor
The lessor, as the owner of the property, has a responsibility to maintain it and is required to make necessary repairs on his own dime from time to time. The property shall not become unfit for enjoyment due to the lessor’s neglect. If the lessor fails to make any repairs that he is obligated to make to the property within a reasonable time after notice, the lessee may make the repairs himself and deduct the cost of such repairs from the rent with interest, or otherwise recover it from the lessor, but he cannot terminate the tenancy or quit because of the lessor’s default. The lessor is not liable for repairs unless there is an express contract that makes him liable; rather, the lessee is liable. Even if the renter agrees to pay the rent without deduction, the tenant retains the right to make this deduction. When the lessor is responsible for the wiring and its maintenance, and a visitor dies from severe electrical shock as a result of defective wiring on the premises, the lessor is solely liable for the loss, but the lessor is not liable when he is under no obligation to attend to the upkeep 1 and the lessee is responsible. The lessee is also liable for damages for nuisance on the demised premises, for injury to third parties, or for damage to adjoining property due to the house being in a dilapidated condition. For example, if a godown is leased for five years and found in good condition after inspection, the tenant is liable if the godown later collapses and damages the adjoining godown’s wall.
● Right To Make Payments Obligatory On Lessor
Unless a lessee commits to pay all taxes due, or payment of a decretal sum to block the sale of the leased property that is subject to a mortgage, it is the primary responsibility of the lessor to pay land revenue, government assessment or ground rent, rates and taxes, etc., as the owner of the property. If the lessor fails to make a payment that he is obligated to make and that is recoverable from the lessee or against the property if not made by him, the lessee may make the payment himself and deduct it from the rent with interest, or otherwise recover it from the lessor. However, if the lessor is not required by law to make a payment, the lessee is not entitled to reimbursement from the lessor.
● Right To Remove Fixtures
During the lessee’s ownership of the property, he or she may attach something to it that becomes a fixture or part of the landlord’s property. Under this clause, the lessee may remove whatever things he had connected to the soil at any time while in possession of the leased property but not afterward, even after the lease has been determined, as long as he leaves the property in the same condition as he acquired it. The rule is subject to a contract to the contrary, and if the buildings to be erected thereon are judged to be the lessor’s property and leased back to the lessee under the contract, they constitute part of the demised premises. The landowner retains the option of removing the building or allowing the material to be removed. If the tenant has placed it up without the owner’s permission, he may be asked to remove it, but he will not be entitled to compensation. A person who is legitimately erecting structures on other people’s land with their permission is not a trespasser, and the buildings erected do not belong to the landowner. The tenant is only entitled to the trees for the duration of his lease, and not even to trees that he has planted himself. Timber trees can be felled by the renter, but not non-timber trees, babul trees, or trees that have sprouted spontaneously. The right to demolish structures negates the entitlement to be compensated. There is no entitlement to compensation if there is nothing to remove, but the lessee is entitled to compensation for the structures he has created if the land and building are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 during the term.
● Right To The Benefit Of Crops Grown By him
When a lease of unknown length determines for any reason other than the lessee’s fault, the lessee or his legal agent is entitled to all crops planted or seeded by the lessee and growing on the property when the lease determines, as well as free entry and egress to gather and carry them.
● Right To Assign The Lease
Property rights are majorly heritable. The lessee gains an interest in the property that is both transferable and heritable because the right to enjoy and occupy it is transferred in his favour. The entire interest in the property, or any part of it, can be transferred in its entirety or by mortgage or sublease in the property, and any transferee of such interest or part can transfer it again. The lessee must not be released from any of the lease’s obligations only as a result of such a transfer. Government land cannot be assigned or transferred. A tenant with an untransferable right of occupancy, a farmer of an estate in default of paying revenue, or a lessee of an estate under the control of a Court of Wards is not permitted to assign their interests as tenants, farmers, or lessees.
Liabilities Of A Lessee
The lessee enjoys right under section 108 and the same section provides for the liabilities of lessee from Clauses (k) to (q). The liabilities are as follows:
● Duty To Disclose Facts
It states that any fact concerning the type or scope of the interest that the lessee is about to accept, of which the lessee is aware but the lessor is not, and which considerably improves the value of such interest, must be disclosed to the lessor. Because the lessor is required to reveal any substantial flaw (latent) in the leased property to the lessee, the lessee is also required to disclose to the lessor any fact that raises the leased property’s worth. The lessor must be completely uninformed of the situation. For example, if a lessee learns of the presence of a gold mine on the leased property, he must inform the lessee. The lessee’s failure to tell the lessor of such information is not a fraudulent act, and the lessor cannot terminate the lease because of it. The lessor, on the other hand, has the right to sue the lessee for damages.
● Duty To Pay Rent
The lessee is obligated to pay or tender the premium or rent to the lessor or his agent at the appropriate time and place. This clause holds the lessee responsible for paying the rent or premium to the lessor at the appointed time and place. However, the proper time begins when the lessee gets possession of the property, not when the lease-deed is signed. In the event that the lessee is unable to take possession of the entire leased property, he will be entitled to a rent decrease. If the property is rented jointly by more than one individual, any of them paying rent will suffice. Similarly, if a shared property is leased to a single individual, any of the lessors’ rent will suffice. The lessor may sue the lessee for rent arrears plus interest if the lessee fails to pay the rent pursuant to the lease agreement, or he may begin eviction proceedings on the grounds of non-payment of rent after giving due notice.
● Duty To Maintain The Property
The lessee is obligated to retain the property and, at the end of the lease, to restore it to the same state as when he took possession. During the term of the lease, he must allow the lessor and his agents to enter the property at any reasonable time to check its condition and give notice of any defects. Where such defect has been caused by any act or default on the part of the lessor or his servants or agents, he is bound to make it good within three months of such notice. The lessee is bound to maintain and restore the property in the condition in which it was let to him. Only the changes caused by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force are allowed under the duty of this clause. Mere drawing of pipeline by the tenant to the tenanted premises for the supply of drinking water does not amount to an act injurious to the building.
● Duty To Give Notice Of Any Encroachment
According to clause (n), if the lessee becomes aware of any procedure to reclaim the property (or a portion thereof), or of any infringement on the lessor’s right, or any interference with the lessor’s right over such property, he is required to notify the lessor with reasonable diligence. Where the lessee comes to know of any encroachment on the property in his possession or any interference with the lessor’s right in respect of property in his possession, he is to inform the lessor about this information so that he may timely take an action to safeguard his interest.
● Duty To Use The Property In Reasonable Way
If the lessee learns of any proceeding to reclaim the property (or a portion of it), or any infringement on the lessor’s right, or any interference with the lessor’s right over such property, he must notify the lessor with reasonable diligence. Where the lessee comes to know of any encroachment on the property in his possession or any interference with the lessor’s right in respect of property in his possession, he is to inform the lessor about this information so that he may timely take an action to safeguard his interest. It was held that the provisions of this Act were violated when the premises were rented to the tenant for a sugarcane juice company but he used them to sell readymade clothing.
● Duty Not To Erect Permanent Structure Without Lessor’s Consent
Except for agricultural purposes, the lessee may not establish any permanent structure on the property without the permission of the lessor. The lessee has the right to erect any permanent structure on the leased property only for agricultural purposes. If a lessee builds a permanent construction without the approval of the lessor, he is responsible for removing it without causing harm to the rented property. In case, the permanent structures on the leased property are not removed after the end of the lease then they belong to the lessor. The lessee replaced the tin shed roof with a cement concrete roof over the pre-existing kitchen and storage room but did not expand the space. The court ruled that it could not be considered permanent building construction. It could best be described as a renovation of a portion of the premises. The roof could be removed without causing damage to the building’s basic framework. Construction that significantly reduces the value and utility of a tenancy is not a basis for issuing an eviction order. It should be a waste of or damage to the property situation. A similar ruling has been made by the Calcutta High Court. The court ruled that any type of construction or structure could not be used as a basis for eviction. The plaintiff-landlord must show by clear and convincing evidence that a permanent construction has been erected on the property. It makes no difference whether the arrangement is legal or not. The construction must be built in such a way that it cannot be removed without causing significant damage or impairment to the demised premises. The simple construction of a mud or brick wall close to the property, which may be dismantled without trouble at any time, cannot be considered a permanent building. Even if a roof is made of asbestos or corrugated tin, or even a concrete slab, it cannot be claimed to be permanent if it can be removed without causing considerable or structural damage to the building.
A lease was given for the operation of a vehicle repair shop. The lessee was allowed to construct a shed out of tile, tin, or asbestos. This was carried out in accordance with the authority granted, and of course, brick wall support was required. The lessee was found to be entitled to a lease extension for the time he was in possession of the property. The terms “permanent structure” now have a real meaning thanks to the Supreme Court. It refers to a structure that will last till the conclusion of the tenancy. It does not have to be a permanent construction or one that creates a more useful area. Other factors to consider when deciding the type of building were also mentioned. The ground tenant in this case built a permanent structure by replacing the premises’ tin roof with a concrete slab and constructing a tunnel. Both changes were made with the intention of lasting till the conclusion of the tenancy. The changes could not be removed without inflicting significant harm to the rest of the structure. The changes were determined to be a permanent construction.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the landlord’s consent can be obtained even after the building has begun because the word “before” does not appear in section 108. Even after construction, if the landlord does nothing when he or she learns about the situation, it can be seen as approval. The fact of whether or not consent was provided must be proven by the landlord himself, as it is specifically within his knowledge and that of no other person.
In a case out of Bombay, the lessor granted the lessee permission to build on the leased land. The lease was finalized. According to the conditions of the lease, the lessee was required to hand over the land and any structures built on it, and the lessor was required to pay the amount based on an agreed upon joint valuation. This contract was found not to be in violation of section 108. The lessee had no right to remain in possession of the land and structures after the lease had expired. The lessee was entitled to the structure’s purchase price.
● Duty To Re-transfer Property
The lessee is obligated to put the lessor in possession of the property once the lease is determined. The property is leased for a set amount of time during which the lessee has the right to use it. The lessee must return possession of the property to the lessor at the end of the lease period. The property must be re-transferred to the lessor. If he keeps possession even after the term has expired, it is considered unauthorised possession. When a tenant fails to evacuate the rented premises after the notice period has expired, he is obligated to pay damages and mesne profits to the lessor. The defendant (tenant) had no right to prolong his occupation of the premises where neither the original owner nor his succeeding son had agreed to a further extension of the lease time and the tenancy was determined under notice to vacate. He had no right to remain on the premises indefinitely just because he had been paying increased rent on a regular basis. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the argument was also completely untenable. The Trial Court weighed all of these factors and interpreted the law to the effect that a son can bring an eviction action based on his father’s notice. The Apex Court had previously concluded in a decision that the beneficiary successor might sustain an eviction claim based on the landlord’s notice. The legal notice sent by the landlord enures to the benefit of the successor, according to another ruling. In light of the term “landlord,” this court has also concluded that an eviction petition does not have to be filed by the owner himself. Another ruling held that there is no transfer of property within the sense of Section 5 of the Act in the case of a family arrangement, and so no notice of attornment is required. The Trial Court correctly found, based on the legal principles articulated in the preceding decisions, that there was valid notice as required by Section 106 of the Act in terminating the tenancy and that the plaintiff’s complaint was maintainable. When a tenant added additional fixtures and fittings to the premises to make them more useful for business but the landlord did not object, it was held that the landlord could not require the tenant to restore the premises to their original condition because the tenant had not caused any damage to the premises. The mere drawing of a pipeline to a building for drinking water will not fall within any of the Section 108 categories, and the building will not be harmed. It was not proven that the tenant encroached on the tenancy of others or deprived the other tenants of their right to use the common bath by constructing an addition or alteration.
● Object Of Lease, Residential Or Commercial
The interpretation of terms for the purpose of determining the prevailing purpose determines whether the arrangement is composite or integrated. The lease deed has to be read in its full. Isolated sentences are not to be picked up separately to conclude that the lease was for residential purposes. The lessee had purchased a going firm, according to the contract, and he demanded that the lessor recognise him as a tenant. The defendant failed to submit documents proving his residential purposes, such as an electricity bill, ration card, or gas connection. He didn’t even bring someone from his neighbourhood to witness the fact that he was living there. The tenancy was determined to be for business purposes by the court.
The lessee can go to court to assert his rights, but there are several loopholes that prevent the lessor from going to court to enforce the lessee’s duties. A legal loophole exists in the form of tenancy at sufferance. When a tenant in legitimate possession of a property holds over without the owner’s approval, this is known as a tenancy at sufferance. The only distinction between a holdover tenant at sufferance and a trespasser is that the holdover tenant at sufferance took possession legally but has now overstayed his or her welcome. If an occupant remains on a property for which they previously had a lease agreement, each state’s legal definitions and standards for determining whether or not they are regarded as trespassers may differ. Eviction proceedings are one of the circumstances that might lead to a tenancy of sufferance. This can happen if a tenant’s lease term expires but they do not quit the premises, and the landlord plans to lease the space to new tenants. The landlord or property owner may pursue legal action to evict the renter, but the tenant normally remains on the premises and cannot be forcibly removed.
The renter must adhere to the rental or lease agreements while the eviction process is in progress. They may be evicted from the property if they do not pay their rent according to their previous lease terms. A final decision on an eviction might take anywhere from six months to a year. As long as the renter met their lease term obligations, the property owner would have to accept the tenancy at sufferance for that time. It’s possible that the landlord will offer to buy the renter out in order to get them to go. This may be a more expensive choice, but it would help to resolve the matter more quickly. If the tenant accepts the buyout, the tenancy at sufferance will cease and the tenant will be required to evacuate the premises.
A new lease agreement could also be offered by the property owner. Acceptance of a new lease by all parties would also end a tenancy at will, and the tenant would be bound by the new agreement’s conditions. For many landlords, leasing commercial or residential property is a lucrative source of income (lessor). Tenants (lessees) on lease have the right to use an immovable property for a set period of time and must pay a monthly, quarterly, or annual lease. Both parties sign a lease deed, which documents the lease’s terms and conditions, including, but not limited to, the period, manner of renewal, and grounds for termination of the lease. It is the lessee’s responsibility to vacate the property and hand over possession of the premises to the owner at the conclusion of the lease term. However, there have been occasions where lessees have refused to evacuate the property long after the lease had expired. It’s vital to distinguish between a tenant who keeps using the property after the lease period ends and a lessee who keeps possession with the landlord’s permission.
It is a case of tenancy at sufferance when a tenant unjustly stays in the residence after the term or expiration of the lease without the approval of the landlord. According to the courts, there is little difference between such a renter and a trespasser. For instance, Ashok had leased a piece of his house to Rahul and had signed a legal lease deed for it. Although Ashok died a few days after the lease’s term ended, Rahul remained in control of the leased premises. Although the lease period has expired, Ashok’s legal heirs want the property back, but Rahul wants to keep the lease and refuses to hand over possession to Ashok’s heirs.
In this situation, Rahul’s possession of the leased premises is neither legal nor legal in the eyes of the law. Ashok’s heirs can file a wrongful possession lawsuit against him, and as a tenant-at-will, Rahul is subject to ‘ejectment’ or eviction under the law. On the other hand, tenancy by ‘holding over’ is applicable where the tenant retains possession of the premises beyond the original lease term with the assent of the landlord. For example, Mehta leases out a portion of his property to Radha and executes a registered lease deed for the same. The term of the lease gets over but Radha continues to be in possession of the property and continues to pay rent to Mehta every month. Mehta appears to have agreed to Radha continuing to rent out his house according to the conditions of the original contract.
A bilateral agreement between the lessor and lessee is required for the tenancy via ‘holding over.’ The act of staying on after the term has ended does not constitute a tenancy in any way. A new tenancy is established only when the landlord agrees to the tenant’s continuation or accepts rent in exchange for the tenant’s ongoing possession of the leased premises. It may constitute to tenancy by holding over if the landlord/lessor accepts rent with full knowledge and on the express ground that the lessee wants to continue the lease.
In the instance of a tenancy by holding over, the tenancy must be terminated by giving the notice to vacate under the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If the lessee fails to quit the premises after the termination notice period has expired, the lessor may seek eviction.
The mere fact that the tenant retains possession after the lease expires does not empower the renter to establish tenancy by holding over. The Act allows a tenant to keep possession of a property if the landlord takes rent or agrees to his continued occupancy. A lessee who had lawful possession of the property prior to the termination or expiration of the lease term, but who wrongfully continues to be in possession despite the termination or expiration of the lease term, without the consent of the lessor or any agreement between the parties, is treated as a tenant by sufferance under the law.
There are multiple factors that show that the lease is slightly biased towards the lessee. The act provides for both but the in practical world lessor often has to suffer because of lessee’s non-compliance with the agreement. Often Lessor has to spend time and energy claiming what actually belongs to him.
After examining the rights and liabilities of both the lessor and the lessee, we can see that, despite the fact that the lessor owns the property, the lessee is in a better position. The lessee has custody of the property, and noncompliance by the lessee frequently leads to the lessor taking legal action to enforce his rights. Due to the overburdening of the courts and the pending nature of the cases, this can take years. There is a need for a process that ensures the lessor feels safe and that he has access to a quicker and more convenient remedy.
This article is written and submitted by Neha Haldhar during her course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Neha is a B.S.W LL.B (Hons.) student from Gujarat National Law University.