Skip to content


Vaguran and ors. Vs. Rangayyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad125
AppellantVaguran and ors.
RespondentRangayyangar
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant--forfeiture for non-payment of rent--transfer of reversion--transfer of property act--act iv of 1882, section 6, clause (b). - - 1. it is argued that upon the true construction of exhibit c, the last clause which relates to forfeiture does not apply to the failure to pay rent, but to failure to comply with the other terms of the lease. 2. we agree, however, with the appellant's pleader that the clause is a penal one which should be relieved against there is a series of cases in this and in the bombay high court in which the right of relief against forfeiture in oases like the present has been recognised and acted on......of the lease. we have no doubt that the last clause does refer, inter alia, to the covenant for payment of rent on the due date. the words 'further' and 'as per terms of the abovementioned lease' leave no room for doubt on this point.2. we agree, however, with the appellant's pleader that the clause is a penal one which should be relieved against there is a series of cases in this and in the bombay high court in which the right of relief against forfeiture in oases like the present has been recognised and acted on. the transfer of property act does not apply to agricultural leases and the landlord had, prior to the institution of this suit, obtained a decree for the payment of rent for fasli 1294.3. as to the right of re-entry we are of opinion that the decisions of the courts below.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued that upon the true construction of Exhibit C, the last clause which relates to forfeiture does not apply to the failure to pay rent, but to failure to comply with the other terms of the lease. We have no doubt that the last clause does refer, inter alia, to the covenant for payment of rent on the due date. The words 'further' and 'as per terms of the abovementioned lease' leave no room for doubt on this point.

2. We agree, however, with the appellant's pleader that the clause is a penal one which should be relieved against There is a series of cases in this and in the Bombay High Court in which the right of relief against forfeiture in oases like the present has been recognised and acted on. The Transfer of Property Act does not apply to agricultural leases and the landlord had, prior to the institution of this suit, obtained a decree for the payment of rent for fasli 1294.

3. As to the right of re-entry we are of opinion that the decisions of the Courts below are right. What was transferred was not the right of re-entry by itself, but the reversion as based on the clause for forfeiture. Though the lease has expired since the suit was instituted, in dealing with this second appeal, we must be guided by the status of the parties at the date of the institution of the suit. The result will be that we set aside the decree of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs of defendants Nos. 3 to 11 throughout.


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