Skip to content


Mahalakshmi Amma and anr. Vs. Lakshmi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ960
AppellantMahalakshmi Amma and anr.
RespondentLakshmi and ors.
Cases Referred and Adhiragi Shetty v. Billa Tyampu
Excerpt:
- - the defendants failed to pay rent even within the period of grace, allowed to them in the tease and falsely plsaded discharge in answer to the suit......of-the district munsif which granted a decree for ejectment. the defendants failed to pay rent even within the period of grace, allowed to them in the tease and falsely plsaded discharge in answer to the suit. the cases narayana naicker v. vusudeva bhatta i.l.r. (1903) m. 389, narayana kamti v. handu shetty (1901) 15 m.l.j. 210 and adhiragi shetty v. billa tyampu : (1910)20mlj944 lay down that, when a period of grace is provided for and payment is not made within that period, forfeiture should not be relieved against. the reason for the rule is that a clause for forfeiture is regarded in-equity as a penalty and when the tenant is given further time in the lease itself it cannot, ordinarily be said that the condition of forfeiture on non-payment within the further period was intended to.....
Judgment:

1. We think in this case the lower appellate court was wrong in reversing the judgment of-the District Munsif which granted a decree for ejectment. The defendants failed to pay rent even within the period of grace, allowed to them in the tease and falsely plsaded discharge in answer to the suit. The cases Narayana Naicker v. Vusudeva Bhatta I.L.R. (1903) M. 389, Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty (1901) 15 M.L.J. 210 and Adhiragi Shetty v. Billa Tyampu : (1910)20MLJ944 lay down that, when a period of grace is provided for and payment is not made within that period, forfeiture should not be relieved against. The reason for the rule is that a clause for forfeiture is regarded in-equity as a penalty and when the tenant is given further time in the lease itself it cannot, ordinarily be said that the condition of forfeiture on non-payment within the further period was intended to be in terrorem.

2. It also appears in this case that the defendants did not ask to be relieved against ferfeiture in the first court but insisted on their plea of discharge.

3. We therefore reverse the judgment of the lower appellate court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this Court and the courts below.


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