• Today: November 02, 2025

R. Kempraj v. Barton Son & Co

02 November, 2025
251
R. Kempraj v. Barton Son & Co. (AIR 1970 SC 1872) — Rule Against Perpetuity & Lease Renewal Option | The Law Easy

R. Kempraj v. Barton Son & Co. (AIR 1970 SC 1872)

Lease renewal option is a personal covenant — not hit by the rule against perpetuity under Section 14 TPA.

Supreme Court of India 1970 AIR 1970 SC 1872 Property Law Rule Against Perpetuity 6–8 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi  • Location: India  • Published: 1 Nov 2025  • Slug: r-kempraj-v-barton-son-co
Illustration for R. Kempraj v. Barton Son & Co. — Lease renewal option case
```

Quick Summary

This case explains a simple point: a lease renewal option is a personal promise inside the lease. It does not create a future interest in land. Because of that, the rule against perpetuity in Section 14, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not strike it down. The tenant who followed the contract can ask the court to make the landlord renew the lease.

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: rule against perpetuity; lease renewal option; Section 14 TPA; specific performance SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: covenant for renewal; property law; Indian Supreme Court PUBLISH_DATE: 01-11-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Issues

  • Does a clause allowing the lessee to renew a 10-year lease after each 10-year period violate the rule against perpetuity?

Rules

Section 14, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (rule against perpetuity) limits creation of remote future interests in property. A renewal option in a lease is a personal covenant. It does not, by itself, create any property interest in the future. Therefore, Section 14 does not apply to such a clause.

Facts — Timeline

Optional
Timeline visual for the Kempraj case
Lease executed: Landlord Barton Son & Co. leased premises to tenant R. Kempraj for 10 years with a renewal option.
Before expiry: The tenant gave written notice to renew on the same terms and conditions.
Refusal: The landlord declined to act on the renewal.
Suit filed: The tenant sued for specific performance of the renewal covenant.
Lower courts: Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and Mysore High Court all decreed in favour of the tenant.
Appeal: Landlord appealed to the Supreme Court of India by special leave.

Arguments

Appellant (Landlord)

  • Renewal clause offends the rule against perpetuity under Section 14 TPA.
  • Clause allegedly creates a remote future interest in land.

Respondent (Tenant)

  • Renewal option is a personal covenant, not a transfer of any future interest.
  • Specific performance should enforce the agreed renewal.

Judgment

Appeal dismissed with costs
Judgment visual for the Kempraj case
  • Section 14 TPA applies when there is a transfer creating a future interest in property.
  • A renewal option is a personal promise, not a transfer of a future interest. Hence, the perpetuity rule does not apply.
  • The lease here was not a lease in perpetuity; the first term was only ten years.
  • The Court noted that English law similarly does not apply the perpetuity rule to covenants for renewal.
  • Specific performance of the renewal covenant was proper. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi

A lease renewal option creates no future interest in property. It is a personal covenant enforceable in law and equity. Therefore, the rule against perpetuity under Section 14 TPA does not strike down such clauses.

Why It Matters

  • Confirms that renewal clauses are valid drafting tools for commercial leases.
  • Protects tenant certainty where the option is properly exercised.
  • Aligns Indian law with English precedents on renewal covenants.

Key Takeaways

  1. Section 14 TPA targets future interests, not personal covenants.
  2. Renewal options are contract rights, enforceable by specific performance.
  3. A 10-year lease with renewal is not a lease in perpetuity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: ReNew = No Future — Renewal is a personal promise, not a future interest.

  1. Read the clause: renewal is a promise.
  2. Recall Section 14: applies to future interests only.
  3. Result: perpetuity rule does not apply.

IRAC Outline

Issue Is a lease renewal option void for perpetuity under Section 14 TPA?
Rule Rule against perpetuity strikes down remote future interests in property; personal covenants are outside its scope.
Application The renewal option promised continuation on agreed terms. It did not transfer a future interest; it only bound the parties personally.
Conclusion Renewal clause stands. Specific performance is available. Appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Rule against perpetuity
A rule that stops creation of remote future interests that can tie up property for too long.
Renewal option
A contractual promise that the lessee may continue the lease on agreed terms after expiry.
Specific performance
A decree ordering a party to do exactly what was promised in the contract.

FAQs

No. Renewal clauses are personal covenants and lie outside the rule against perpetuity.

No. The base term remains fixed. Renewal is a separate right that may be exercised per contract.

Specific performance of the renewal covenant, if the tenant has complied with the clause.

Yes, it noted English cases also do not apply the perpetuity rule to renewal covenants.
Property Law Transfer of Property Act Rule Against Perpetuity
```

Comment

Nothing for now