A fundamental link must be established between the event of force majeure and the non-compliance with the contractual obligation. The party concerned must be able to clearly demonstrate that the force majeure event was the cause of the breach of the contractual obligation. Confidence was placed in Raja Dhruv (supra), where the Supreme Court ruled that the temporary non-use by tenants of the premises rented for any reason would not be admissible to the tenant, going to Section 108 of the Property Act. Reliance was also responded to the decision taken by Shaha Ratansi Khimji and S-hne v. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt. Ltd. et ors.7, where the Supreme Court stated that, in cases , Section 108 (e) (e) of the Property Act, it cannot be construed in the sense that, when renting a building or building, only the building is leased exclusively and this lease is also a lease. Although the tenants` premises were demolished and destroyed, the rent could not be taken into account. Many requests come from large companies such as cinemas, shopping malls, retail, hotels and restaurants, which seek the intervention of the state to make leases for leases of rented premises. Let us see how the government responds to this demand so that businesses do not reach the level of total collapse and that the well-being of families whose rental income is the only means of subsistence is not threatened.
Therefore, if not given up completely, an average solution can be thought of by tenants and landlords, so that the courts are not inundated with such disputes. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case entitled « Raja Dhruv Dev Chand vs. Harmohinder Singh – Anr ». In 1968 3 SCR 339, noted that « according to a legal lease, there is a transfer of the right to enjoy this country. If a material part of the property is completely destroyed or rendered totally unsuitable for the purpose for which it was rented due to fire, storm, flood, violence of an army or a mob or other irresistible force, the lease can be avoided at the tenant`s choice. This rule applies to transfers of land subject to the Transfer of Ownership Act and their principle for agricultural leases and leases in areas where the law on the transfer of ownership is not renewed. If the leased land is not destroyed or unsuitable for the most part and permanently, the tenant cannot bypass the lease because he cannot or cannot use the land for purposes for which it is leased. The complaint fails and is dismissed with a fee. Tenants hope to invoke the doctrine of force majeure as legal protection against non-compliance with their contractual obligations. Even large groups such as PVR and Reliance Retail have been forced to use this maxim. Legal bodies such as the RERA in many countries have had to take note of the pandemic as a case of force majeure.
Therefore, before relying on a force majeure clause to waive rent, tenants must first review their contracts and check whether they have the power to forego or suspend rent. « Force majeure » is a common law concept and, as such, not codified in most common law countries such as India. She finds Section 56 of the Indian Contact Act, the rule of frustration, which says, « An agreement to do an action that is impossible in itself is annic. An act contract that becomes impossible after the contract is concluded or becomes illegal because of an event that the promisor could not prevent becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal. The mere appearance of a force majeure event is no reason to be excused by the performance.