Track Your Request
Track Your Request
+91-7604047602 Our Team About Us Legal Blog Free Legal Advice Login
Vidhikarya Text Logo

Advise to revisit contracts and the law to avoid present legal tensions in future post Covid.

Advise to revisit contracts and the law to avoid present legal tensions in future post Covid.
Looking Ahead: Revisiting Contracts and the Law.

Force Majeure and its Applicability?

Force majeure events are those beyond the control of the parties to the contract, which typically free parties from fulfilling contractual obligations, when prevented by such an event. While commonly mistaken to mean an “act of God” the expression force majeure extends beyond natural calamities to labour unrest, lockdowns, governmental actions etc., which are of course man-made. While the lockdown scenario that the nation was under may certainly be brought under the broad concept, what is important to note here is that it is a creature of contract between parties. Therefore, to be available as a tool of relief to a contracting party, force majeure must be expressly provided for and appropriately defined in the contract.

Doctrine of Frustration:

Generally, where contracts do not have force majeure clauses, parties rely on the doctrine of frustration set out under Section 56 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 (“ICA”). Simply put, a contract to do an act which becomes impossible becomes void. However, on examination by courts, the question of applicability of the Contracts Act was answered in the negative since the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”), being a special statute, would supersede the ICA in application to lease agreements.

The Apex Court has dealt with this matter in the case of Dhruv Dev Chand vs. Harmohinder Sing [AIR 1986 SC 1024] and later in Sushila Devi vs. Hari Singh [1971 AIR 1756]. The Supreme Court clarified that once a valid lease comes into existence it becomes a completed conveyance under which the lessee gets an interest in the property. There is a clear distinction between a completed conveyance and an executory contract. Events which discharge a contract do not invalidate a concluded transfer and therefore the said doctrine of frustration will not apply to leases. Instead, Section 108(B)(e) of the TP Act comes into application, which has two fundamental conditions to be satisfied for a lease to become void, a) in the event of a fire, tempest or flood, or violence of an army or of a mob, or other irresistible force, and b) any material part of the property be wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purposes for which it was let.

Clearly, this lays down a very narrow premise, which in our opinion, a lockdown / pandemic does not satisfy. In light of the fact that both the doctrine of frustration under the ICA and Section 108 of the TP Act do not come to the aid of parties to a lease the absence of a well drafted force majeure clause in a lease agreement results in a gaping lacuna and leave parties with no option but to follow through with the terms of the lease or face litigation for default.

Recent Developments:

The Delhi High Court in the case of Ramanand & Ors. vs. Dr. Girish & Sons (CM Appl. 10847/2020, order dated 21st May 2020) cleared the air on the applicability of Section 56 of ICA, and Section 108(B)(e) of TP Act. As elucidated above, the court held that Section 56 of ICA will not apply to lease agreements, and further, the applicability of Section 108(B)(e) of the TP Act is subject to the lease premises being substantially and permanently unfit for leasing. Notably however, the court also observed that in the absence of a contractual stipulation, the tenant may generally seek suspension of rent by invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the court due to temporary non-use of the premises.

Measures by State Governments:

In Telangana and Maharashtra, the State Government had issued orders (under the Disaster Management Act, 2005) directing landlords to defer rent collection for a period of at least three months in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis. The orders specifically direct landlords to not evict tenants due to non-payment of timely rent. This shifting of burden cannot be taken lightly, and it would certainly have taken a toll on affected landlords.

Alternative Solutions:

Even if offices, stores, restaurants are closed and have no footfall, the lessees are still very much using the leased premises to store their furniture, equipment, computer servers and the such. Seeking a waiver on grounds of non-usage of premises is therefore not viable. While landlords may have had the upper hand here, the best strategy was for parties to take a pragmatic, cautious approach taking into account practical exigencies to avoid unnecessary disputes. For instance, some parties opted for deferred payment of rent as a middle path that gave relief to lessees, while ensuring realization of rent eventually. After all, dealing with an existing lessee may be an easier task than to scout for a new tenant in the present climate.

Looking Ahead: Revisiting Contracts and the Law:

Whether favouring the lessee or the lessor, it is important that there be contractual clarity going forward so parties can be prepared either way. Many lessors may now insist on a carve out from force majeure clauses, obligating timely rent payment even in the event of a pandemic or lockdown, while on the other hand it would in the best interest of lessees to seek relaxations from contractual obligations in such an event. Furthermore, pandemic insurance cover may also become a standard policy taken by commercial lessors and lessees moving forward.

Coming back to the present, many existing lease arrangements either have no force majeure provision, or do not specifically address the present situation. The only option for the parties is to rely on the remedies provided under law, both legislative and judicial. While it may seem reactionary in nature, the ripple effects of this pandemic’s spread had to be experienced to be known. Now, one cannot unring this bell, and it is time for the legislature to step in with suitable measures.

Posted On : December 15, 2020

Written By :
Paul  P P
Paul P P
Mumbai |

Recommended Free Legal Advices
question markServing notice period
If you are ready to pay salary in lieu of the notice period then send them a formal mail/letter for the same and even after that if the HR is not agreeing then you quit by depositing all the assets to the company. Later if the company is making ant legal issues out of that then you can show them the mail/letter.
question markNotice period payment
Generally, companies have a clause of notice period wherein employee must work for the notice period and Full and Final settlement is made after notice period is served. Case-1 (Notice period clause present) If your company has notice period clause in employment agreement (on stamp paper) or appointment letter, and you left immediately after resignation, then they can deduct the notice period pay. Case-2 (Notice Period Clause not present) If there is no such notice period clause, then by law employer cannot deduct any pay from you and your last working day shall be considered as date of leaving for purpose of paying full and final. The constitution of India provides the fundamental right to every person to choose the profession of his choice and any agreement contrary to this is invalid. By putting the clause in service regulation that it is company’s discretion to accept the notice or not is against the provisions of constitution of India. Hence company cannot threaten you by showing this clause. The Company cannot force you to serve the entire notice period. I want to clarify that Bond period is a different concept which is different from Notice period. Bond period makes you bound to work for certain time (usually 1 year). Bond period is illegal but notice period is legal if agreed under employment letter/ agreement etc. Hope it clarifies. I can suggest more only by reading the documents. You may approach me through Vidhikarya for further clarifications.
question markdata entry fraud
Dear Sir, You need not pay any amount and ask them to approach any Court to recover the same. I could have explained more if background is known to me. I am at your service if you visit my office. Please give me FIVE STAR if satisfied by my answers and you may approach me through Vidhikarya for further clarifications.
question markRegarding Lease Deed/ Agreement
Dear Sir, You may approach any local chartered accountant to get effective legal advise relating to finance and tax matters. I could have explained more if background is known to me. I am at your service if you visit my office. Please give me FIVE STAR if satisfied by my answers and you may approach me through Vidhikarya for further clarifications.
question markLegal advice on Building contractor
It is necessary to scrutinize the Contract papers entered by and between parties as well as the document through which you had terminated such contract specifying the grounds of such termination as well as the reply of that contractor in this regard. To give opinion, relevant documentary evidences are to be scrutinized as a whole.

Please enter the text



Send your queries to

[email protected]
Consult Contracts and Agreements Lawyers from your City!
Post Your Matter
Post Your Matter to connect with the Lawyer online
Call 7604047602 for any assistance
Our Team
Lawyer Login
Be a Partner

Download the Lawyers App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform
Contact Details
[email protected]
No. 2, First Floor, Subharaj
Plot No. CE/1/C/19, Premises No. 18-0208,
Action Area- 1, New Town