Forfeiture of Tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act

Forfeiture means the landlord has the legal right to end the lease before its normal term and recover possession of the property when the tenant commits a serious breach of important lease conditions. For example, if a tenant sublets the premises despite a clear ban in the lease allowing re-entry, the landlord may seek forfeiture, subject to legal safeguards protecting tenants from unfair eviction.

Main Law 

Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) governs forfeiture.

Three Main Grounds for Forfeiture:

1. Breach of an Express Condition: Forfeiture applies only when the lease clearly states that the landlord can take back the property if a specific rule is broken, such as no subletting, no change of business, or no major alterations. For example, using a stationery shop as a liquor store breaches the lease if change of use is banned. Only clear, written conditions allow forfeiture.
2. Denial of Landlord’s Title: When a tenant claims that the property belongs to himself or to a third person, or denies that the landlord is the true owner, it amounts to rejection of the tenancy. For example, a tenant asserting ownership through adverse possession clearly disowns the landlord–tenant relationship.
3. Insolvency of the Tenant: The tenant is declared insolvent (bankrupt), but only if the lease specifically says insolvency allows the landlord to re-enter.

Important Rule: Notice is Mandatory 

Forfeiture does not happen automatically. The landlord must send a written notice clearly saying he intends to end the lease because of the breach.

Waiver of Forfeiture (Section 112) 

If the landlord knows about the breach but still accepts rent that became due after the breach, he usually loses the right to forfeit (this is called waiver).  However, accepting rent after filing an eviction case does not count as waiver.

Relief Against Forfeiture (Section 114) 

Courts can save the tenant from eviction, especially for non-payment of rent. If the tenant pays all arrears + interest + costs (or gives good security) before the final hearing, the court may allow the tenancy to continue.  Courts generally favour giving this relief.

Forfeiture under Rent Control Acts 

In areas covered by state Rent Control laws (e.g., Delhi, Maharashtra), the rules are stricter: 

• Landlords cannot evict just because the lease ended or a contract clause was broken.
• Eviction is allowed only on specific grounds listed in the Rent Control Act.
• Even after the lease is terminated, the tenant often continues as a “statutory tenant” and gets strong protection.

Key Supreme Court Ruling

In V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979), the Court said: No separate notice under Section 111(g) TPA is needed when eviction is sought under Rent Control laws.

Forfeiture vs. Normal Notice to Quit

Conclusion 

Indian law permits forfeiture of tenancy only in clear and serious cases of breach, and even then, it is surrounded by strict safeguards to prevent misuse. Forfeiture requires an express condition in the lease allowing re-entry, followed by mandatory written notice from the landlord. The tenant is further protected through the principles of waiver (where the landlord’s conduct, such as accepting post-breach rent, may forfeit his right to evict) and equitable relief from courts, especially in cases of non-payment of rent. In areas governed by Rent Control Acts, these protections become even stronger, often overriding general TPA provisions and allowing eviction only on specific statutory grounds. Overall, the framework carefully balances the landlord’s right to enforce the lease with robust safeguards that prioritize fairness, equity, and protection for tenants against arbitrary eviction.