Skip to content


Krishna Vs. Lakshminaranappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad67
AppellantKrishna
RespondentLakshminaranappa
Cases ReferredChockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady
Excerpt:
rent recovery act - act viii of 1865 (madras), sections 3, 12--mulgeni holding--right of tenant to relinquish his lease. - 1. we are of opinion that section 12 of the rent recovery act does not apply to this case. in the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. see the remarks of holloway, j., page 173, in the case of chockalinga pillai v. vythealinga pundara sunnady 6 m.h.c.r. 164.2. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act does not apply to this case. In the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by Section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an Act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. See the remarks of Holloway, J., page 173, in the case of Chockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady 6 M.H.C.R. 164.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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