1. Facts of the Case
- A is a lessee of certain premises from B, under a lease terminable on three months’ notice.
- C, without having any authority from B, issues a notice of termination of the lease to A.
- Subsequently, B ratifies the notice given by C and files a suit for ejectment of A from the premises.
- The dispute is whether B’s ratification of an unauthorised act of C is sufficient to terminate the lease and obtain a decree for ejectment.
2. Issues in the Case
- Whether C’s notice, issued without the authority of B, binds the lessee A.
- Whether B can ratify an unauthorised act of a third party (C) and make it legally effective.
- Whether ratification after the fact can validate a notice of termination and enable B to obtain a decree for ejectment.
- The legal consequences of ratification in the context of agency and authority under Indian law.
3. Legal Principles Covered
a) Ratification under Indian Contract Act
- Section 196: Ratification is the affirmation of a prior act done by another person on behalf of the principal, which the principal could have originally authorised.
- Effect of Ratification: Once ratified, the act is treated as if it had been originally authorised by the principal.
Key Requirement:
- The act must have been capable of being authorised at the time it was done.
- The principal (here B) must have full knowledge of the material facts of the act when ratifying.
b) Agency Law – Authority of Agents
- Section 202: If a person acts without authority, the principal is not automatically bound, unless he ratifies the act.
- Ratification can make an unauthorised act legally effective, from the date of ratification, not retrospectively unless expressly stated.
c) Lease Termination
- A lease terminable on notice requires the notice to be lawfully given by the lessor or his authorised agent.
- If an unauthorised person gives notice, it is ineffective unless ratified.
Case Law Examples:
- Central Bank of India v. Hargopal Singh, AIR 1958 SC 345 – Ratification of an unauthorised act by the principal validates it if done with knowledge of all material facts.
- Yashwant Singh v. Maheshwari, AIR 1973 MP 112 – Ratification by the principal binds the other party as if the act were originally authorised.
- Pollock & Mulla on Contract Act – An act done without authority may be ratified if it is within the powers of the principal and the principal knows the full facts.
d) Application to the Present Case
- C acted without authority in giving notice of termination to A.
- B subsequently ratified C’s notice, fully aware of its contents and implications.
- Under Sections 196 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, the notice becomes effective from the date of ratification.
- Therefore, B is legally entitled to enforce the notice and file a suit for ejectment of A.
4. Possible Judgement
- Since B ratified the notice given by C, the unauthorised act is now validated by law.
- A, the lessee, is bound by the ratified notice and must comply with the termination terms.
- The court would likely hold:
- B is entitled to get a decree for ejectment of A.
- The ratification by B makes the unauthorised notice legally effective, provided ratification was done with full knowledge.
- The three months’ notice period will be counted from the date of the original notice or from the date of ratification, depending on the court’s interpretation.
About lawgnan:
Understanding ratification and agency law is crucial for lessors, lessees, and legal practitioners. At Lawgnan.in, we provide expert guidance on cases where unauthorised acts, once ratified by the principal, gain legal validity. Learn how ratification affects leases, termination notices, and the rights of parties involved. Whether you are a landlord seeking clarity on ejectment procedures or a tenant facing disputed notices, our insights simplify complex legal principles. Visit Lawgnan.in to access case analyses, practical advice, and step-by-step explanations to safeguard your interests and ensure compliance with Indian Contract Act provisions.
