Transfer of Property Act, 1882 · Chapter V: Of Leases of Immoveable Property
Section 114A: Relief against forfeiture in certain other cases
In plain words
If a lease is forfeited for breach of an express condition allowing re-entry, the landlord cannot sue for eviction without first giving written notice specifying the breach and, if it can be remedied, asking the tenant to remedy it within a reasonable time.
- This does not apply to conditions against assigning, subletting or parting with possession, or to forfeiture for non-payment of rent.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Where a lease of immoveable property has determined by forfeiture for a breach of an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter, no suit for ejectment shall lie unless and until the lessor has served on the lessee a notice in writing—
(a) specifying the particular breach complained of; and
(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach;
and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time from the date of the service of the notice, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy.
Nothing in this section shall apply to an express condition against the assigning, underletting, parting with the possession, or disposing, of the property leased, or to an express condition relating to forfeiture in case of non-payment of rent.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 114A
- Alsorg Interiors India Pvt. Ltd v. Kunal Suri & Anr
- Smt. Sunita Garg v. M/S Scraft Product P Ltd
- Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology India Private Limited
- Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation
- Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v. M/S Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- Tharumal and Anr. v. Masjid Hajum Pharosan Va Madrassa Talimul Islam, Mirza Izsmail Road, Jaipur
- Basant Lal (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. v. The State of U.P. and Anr.
- Jamnadas Dharamdas v. Dr. J. Joseph Ferreira and Anr.
- V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal
- Brij Kishore Gupta v. Vishwamitra Kapur