Skip to content


Athakutti Vs. Govinda and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR16Mad97
AppellantAthakutti
RespondentGovinda and ors.
Cases Referred and Subba v. Nagappa I.L.R.
Excerpt:
license to occupy - landlord and tenant--notice to quit. - 1. the only question raised in second appeal is whether second defendant is entitled to notice. we think not the defendants were allowed to occupy on condition of doing certain work. it is found that they did work up to five years ago.on ceasing to do work they were liable to eviction without notice. it is not the case of a tenant but the case of a licensee. this case may easily be distinguished from those in abdulla rawutan v. subbarayyar i.l.r. 2 mad. 346 and subba v. nagappa i.l.r. 12 mad. 353, as in both those cases there was an agreement to pay rent. here there was no agreement to pay rent, but the mirasidars permitted the defendants to occupy a certain house site so long as they did work. this second appeal fails and. is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The only question raised in second appeal is whether second defendant is entitled to notice. We think not The defendants were allowed to occupy on condition of doing certain work. It is found that they did work up to five years ago.On ceasing to do work they were liable to eviction without notice. It is not the case of a tenant but the case of a licensee. This case may easily be distinguished from those in Abdulla Rawutan v. Subbarayyar I.L.R. 2 Mad. 346 and Subba v. Nagappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 353, as in both those cases there was an agreement to pay rent. Here there was no agreement to pay rent, but the mirasidars permitted the defendants to occupy a certain house site so long as they did work. This second appeal fails and. is dismissed with costs.


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