Skip to content


Maragathammal Vs. Azimunnissa Begum - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 861 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad92a; (1952)IIMLJ883
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 116
AppellantMaragathammal
RespondentAzimunnissa Begum
Advocates:A. Nagarajan and ;A. Viswanathan, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredChristy v. Tancred
Excerpt:
- - 2. the learned judge was clearly in error......due to her under a rent deed executed in her favour on 17-11-1946 by the two defendants in the suit, father and daughter. defendant 1, the father, admitted the claim, but defendant 2, the daughter, pleaded that she was living with her father jn the suit house from december 1946, that she was living in vellore till december 1947, and that she vacated the house and went to madras. the learned small cause judge at vellore held that defendant 2 also joined in the execution of the rental agreement. the position of defendant 2 was therefore that of a joint tenant along with defendant 1. but he held that defendant 2 was not liable for the rent, because she vacated the premises on or about 9-10-1947 and had intimated the fact to the plaintiff.2. the learned judge was clearly in error.the.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent due to her under a rent deed executed in her favour on 17-11-1946 by the two defendants in the suit, father and daughter. Defendant 1, the father, admitted the claim, but defendant 2, the daughter, pleaded that she was living with her father jn the suit house from December 1946, that she was living in Vellore till December 1947, and that she vacated the house and went to Madras. The learned Small Cause Judge at Vellore held that defendant 2 also joined in the execution of the rental agreement. The position of defendant 2 was therefore that of a joint tenant along with defendant 1. But he held that defendant 2 was not liable for the rent, because she vacated the premises on or about 9-10-1947 and had intimated the fact to the plaintiff.

2. The learned Judge was clearly in error.The fact that defendant 2 purported to vacatethe premises on 9-10-1947 would not avail herunless the plaintiff had been put in possessionof the premises. Till that is done, she as ajoint lessee would be liable so long as thelessor has not obtained vacant possession of thepremises. The law is thus stated in Mulla'sCommentaries on the Transfer of PropertyAct, 3rd Edn. (1949) at page 702 :

'If one of two joint lessees fails to restorevacant possession to the landlord, both willbe liable.'

The authority for this proposition is to befound in -- 'Christy v. Tancred', (1840) 151 ER 706 (A), where Parke B. observed as follows :

'It is clear that the original parties to thisagreement continued liable for the rent astenants holding over, unless there was a newagreement by the landlord to accept otherpersons as his tenants in their stead.'

3. The civil revision petition is allowed andthe decree of the learned Judge in so far asthe plaintiff's claim against defendant 2 wasdismissed is hereby set aside. The plaintiff willhave a decree also against defendant 2.


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