'The law abhors a forfeiture.' Explain the application of this maxim to the relating to leases.

The maxim “The law abhors a forfeiture” embodies the equitable principle that courts should not enforce a forfeiture clause in a lease where the breach is not wilful or where the tenant is willing and able to remedy the default.

In the context of leases, this principle finds statutory reflection in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. While Section 111(g) allows a lessor to determine the lease on the breach of an express condition entitling re-entry, Section 114 provides a mitigating safeguard: if the forfeiture is due to non-payment of rent, and the lessee pays or tenders the rent due with interest and costs at the hearing of the suit, the court may grant relief against forfeiture and restore possession to the lessee.

Courts have consistently held that forfeiture clauses are to be construed strictly, and relief should be granted where the breach is remediable. In Shyamlal Agarwala v. Smt. Nanda Rani Dassi (AIR 1987 Cal 19), it was reiterated that the court should lean in favour of granting equitable relief, especially when the tenant shows bona fide intent to comply with the lease terms. Similarly, in Ayesha Khatoon v. Durga Sahaya (AIR 1976 Cal 293), the Calcutta High Court held that forfeiture is a drastic consequence and must be exercised sparingly and justly.

Moreover, notice of forfeiture is essential, and mere breach without communication does not ipso facto terminate the lease. This reinforces the idea that law disfavors the mechanical application of forfeiture clauses and upholds the tenant’s right to fair opportunity.

While landlords have statutory rights to terminate leases upon breach, courts, guided by the principle that the law abhors forfeiture, exercise discretion to prevent disproportionate hardship, especially where tenants seek to cure the default.

• Property Law - Notes, Case Laws And Study Material
• Test Series for Competitions