Section 115: Effect of surrender and forfeiture on under-leases

Transfer of Property Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1882

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 115

Section 115 regulates the legal effect of surrender and forfeiture on under-leases, providing that an express or implied surrender does not prejudice under-leases previously granted, whereas a valid forfeiture destroys under-leases unless procured by fraud.

  • Surrender Leaves Sub-Leases Intact: The surrender, express or implied, of a lease of immoveable property does not prejudice an under-lease of the property or any part thereof previously granted by the lessee.
  • Direct Tenancy on Surrender: Unless the surrender is made for obtaining a new lease, the under-lessee becomes the direct tenant of the head lessor on the terms of the sub-lease.
  • Forfeiture Destroys Sub-Leases: The forfeiture of a lease annuls all such under-leases, except where such forfeiture has been procured by the lessor in fraud of the under-lessees.
  • Relief Against Forfeiture for Sub-Tenants: Sub-tenants may apply to court for relief against forfeiture under Section 114.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Tirath Ram Gupta v. Gurubachan Singh, (1987) 1 SCC 13: The Supreme Court held that under Section 115, a surrender by the principal tenant cannot defeat the rights of a lawful sub-tenant; upon surrender, the sub-tenant becomes the direct tenant of the owner.
  • Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262: Affirmed that forfeiture for breach of non-subletting covenants wipes out the under-lease under Section 115.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If a master tenant colludes with the landlord to surrender the lease to evict you as a lawful sub-tenant, assert Section 115 to claim direct tenancy status under the head landlord.