Skip to content


Mailthi Hengsu and anr. Vs. Soma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad670(2); 30Ind.Cas.484
AppellantMailthi Hengsu and anr.
RespondentSoma and ors.
Cases ReferredParameshri v. Vittappa Shanbaga
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - alienation, whether works relinquishment or forfeiture of tenancy--land-cess, right to recover--madras local boards act (v of 1884). - - k 157. 3. the second contention, which is that the landlord is entitled to recover half the land-cess from the tenant, is a good one......in our opinion this clause does not work a forfeiture, but is rather intended to secure for the tenant a right to relinquish his holding at his option. in fact the case in which the tenant alienates the land is in terms excluded from the conditions upon which he is allowed to relinquish it. the landlord, therefore, cannot rely on the fact that the land has been alienated as indicating a desire to relinquish, and thus work the clause to the tenants disadvantage when forfeiture does not follow from the act of alienation. we do not see any material distinction between this case and that dealt with in parameshri v. vittappa shanbaga 26 m.k 157.3. the second contention, which is that the landlord is entitled to recover half the land-cess from the tenant, is a good one. madras act v of 1884.....
Judgment:

1. It is first contended that the landlord can compel the tenant to surrender the land on the strength of the following clause in the lease-deed (Exhibit A): 'if, while without alienating the land in any manner I am enjoying the said land through posterity, I find that I do not require the said land, I shall relinquish the land to you and obtain from you the value of the improvements which I have made thereon'.

2. In our opinion this clause does not work a forfeiture, but is rather intended to secure for the tenant a right to relinquish his holding at his option. In fact the case in which the tenant alienates the land is in terms excluded from the conditions upon which he is allowed to relinquish it. The landlord, therefore, cannot rely on the fact that the land has been alienated as indicating a desire to relinquish, and thus work the clause to the tenants disadvantage when forfeiture does not follow from the act of alienation. We do not see any material distinction between this case and that dealt with in Parameshri v. Vittappa Shanbaga 26 M.k 157.

3. The second contention, which is that the landlord is entitled to recover half the land-cess from the tenant, is a good one. Madras Act V of 1884 does not restrict this right to cases in which the lease-deed contains a provision to that effect.

4. We modify the decree by allowing Rs. 4-11-6 disallowed by the lower Courts and in ether respects we dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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