Skip to content


Venkataramanayya Vs. Srinivasa Rau - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad182
AppellantVenkataramanayya
RespondentSrinivasa Rau
Excerpt:
limitation act, section 19 - landlord and tenant--acknowledgment of different tenancy. - .....is, a lease for a year, which, after continuance beyond the term of the year, becomes a lease from year to year. notice is necessary before a tenant so holding can have his tenancy determined.2. it is now found that due notice was given.3. the subordinate judge was of opinion that a deposition given by defendant in 1876 in which he admitted his liability to rent in arrears operated to extend the period of limitation, and awarded rent from the year 1874, but the section of the limitation act applicable (section 19) requires that the acknowledgment should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the right claimed. the acknowledgment made by the deposition is a liability in respect of a different right to that claimed, viz., a liability to pay rent as a mulgaini tenant.4. we can only.....
Judgment:

1. On the finding of the Subordinate Judge, the case stands thus: The lease was a Chalgaini lease, that is, a lease for a year, which, after continuance beyond the term of the year, becomes a lease from year to year. Notice is necessary before a tenant so holding can have his tenancy determined.

2. It is now found that due notice was given.

3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that a deposition given by defendant in 1876 in which he admitted his liability to rent in arrears operated to extend the period of limitation, and awarded rent from the year 1874, but the section of the Limitation Act applicable (Section 19) requires that the acknowledgment should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the right claimed. The acknowledgment made by the deposition is a liability in respect of a different right to that claimed, viz., a liability to pay rent as a Mulgaini tenant.

4. We can only allow rent within three years prior to the date of the suit.

5. The plaintiff is liable to pay for improvements, Rs. 487-8-0, after deduction of the value of the old materials employed by defendant.

6. In modification, therefore, of the decree of the Subordinate Judge, we shall decree that plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 487-8-0 for improvements, and that, on plaintiff paying Rs. 383-8-0, being Rs. 487-8-0 less Rs. 104, the rent of three years immediately preceding the suit, and three-and-a-half years' further rent up to the 13th December 1882, the defendant do surrender the premises to plaintiff, and that defendant do bear all costs up to the appeal to the High Court, and each party will bear his own costs of this appeal.


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