Skip to content


Nand Kishore Vs. Anwar HusaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1908)ILR30All82
AppellantNand Kishore
RespondentAnwar HusaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
lease - condition for payment of rent in advance--suit by purchaser of demised property for rent--registration--notice. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are..........that if at any time during the currency of the lease, the lessor should demand any portion of the rent in advance from the lessee, the latter would be bound to pay it on obtaining a receipt. the lease was registered and is not disputed here. on the 25th of december 1902 a sum of rs. 1,520 was paid in advance for rent by the lessee to the lessor on demand made by the lessor in pursuance of the provision in the lease to which we have referred. this payment, it is found, satisfied the rent payable up to the end of 1314 fasli. on the 20th of october 1903 the plaintiff appellant purchased the property so leased at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against sajjad husain. he instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of the rent for the year 1311 and part of.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.

1. The question for determination in this litigation is a novel one. One Sajjad Husain was the owner of certain property at or prior to the year 1898. On the 21st of September of that year be granted a lease to the defendant of portion of this property for a term of 10 years, that is, from 13065 to 1315 Fasli (inclusive). The lease contains a very unusual provision to the effect that if at any time during the currency of the lease, the lessor should demand any portion of the rent in advance from the lessee, the latter would be bound to pay it on obtaining a receipt. The lease was registered and is not disputed here. On the 25th of December 1902 a sum of Rs. 1,520 was paid in advance for rent by the lessee to the lessor on demand made by the lessor in pursuance of the provision in the lease to which we have referred. This payment, it is found, satisfied the rent payable up to the end of 1314 Fasli. On the 20th of October 1903 the plaintiff appellant purchased the property so leased at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against Sajjad Husain. He instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of the rent for the year 1311 and part of 1312 Fasli, which had been already paid. He was met by the defence that the rent for that period had already been paid to Sajjad Husain under the provision in the lease.

2. The question is whether under such circumstances this is a good defence to the suit. As we have said, the lease is a registered document and the plaintiff appellant must be deemed to have purchased with knowledge of it. It was open to him when he was contemplating the purchase to make inquiry of the lessor or lessee as to whether or not any rent had been paid in advance according to the provision in the lease. He appears to have neglected to do so and purchased the property, no doubt, in the belief that he would be entitled to the rent from the date of purchase for the remainder of the term. But for the fact that the lease was a registered document, and that the rent had been paid bona fide in advance, in accordance with the condition in it, the plaintiff would probably have been in a position to establish his claim; but in view of the fact that the case was registered and that payment of the rent claimed has been made in accordance with it bond fide before the date of the plaintiff's purchase, we are unable to dissent from the decision of the learned District Judge. The payment of rent before it becomes due is not ordinarily a fulfilment of the obligation imposed by a covenant to pay rent, but is in fact an advance to the lessor with an agreement on his part that when the rent becomes due such advance will be treated as a fulfilment of the obligation to pay the rent--sec De Nicholls v. Saunders (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 589. We must hold, in view of the facts in this case, that the rent sought to be recovered in this suit was satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the lease by the advance previously made. The plaintiff appellant cannot complain, inasmuch as he did not take the precaution of making inquiry as to whether or not any money had been paid in advance as provided for by the document. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //