Skip to content


M.S.M. Duraisawmy Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kuppusami Padayachi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.802
AppellantM.S.M. Duraisawmy Chettiar and ors.
RespondentKuppusami Padayachi and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - lease for building purposes--presumption of 'permanent grant. - - the lower appellate court has held that the lease being for building purposes, there is a presumption in the absence of anything to the contrary in the lease that the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and that the plaintiff's suit, therefore, must fail......the payment of an annual rent. it is also stated therein that it was made for the purpose of the lessee building a house and living therein. the lower appellate court has held that the lease being for building purposes, there is a presumption in the absence of anything to the contrary in the lease that the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and that the plaintiff's suit, therefore, must fail. it is contended before us that as the trustees have no power to grant a permanent lease, the presumption is that the lease they have granted, is not permanent, and there is nothing in the lease itself to show that the lessees were to hold in perpetuity. the lease expressly states that it was made for the lessee building the house to enable him to live there. the learned pleader for the.....
Judgment:

1. The appellants, the trustees of a certain temple, sue to recover a plot of land with the house thereon from the defendants. The land was a vacant manai when it was let to the defendants' predecessors in title in 1891. No term was fixed; the lease provided for the payment of an annual rent. It is also stated therein that it was made for the purpose of the lessee building a house and living therein. The lower appellate Court has held that the lease being for building purposes, there is a presumption in the absence of anything to the contrary in the lease that the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and that the plaintiff's suit, therefore, must fail. It is contended before us that as the trustees have no power to grant a permanent lease, the presumption is that the lease they have granted, is not permanent, and there is nothing in the lease itself to show that the lessees were to hold in perpetuity. The lease expressly states that it was made for the lessee building the house to enable him to live there. The learned pleader for the appellants does not concede that either by the customary law of the country or by the term of the lease itself, the tenant on eviction is entitled to get the value of his house or other improvements. In these circumstances we are of opinion, that it could hardly have been intended that the landlord should have the power of determining the tenancy and recovering possession of the land and the house therein which it was contemplated at the time of the lease should be constructed thereon and which the lessee actually constructed soon after the lease at a cost of over Rs. 500. There is nothing before us to show that the lease was prejudicial to the temple. The land in dispute was a vacant site. It now pays an annual rent. The ownership of the trees that may be planted by the lessees is vested in the lessees who alone are entitled to cut them. We are, therefore, unable from this circumstance to draw any presumption against a permanent grant.

2. We think the case is rightly decided and dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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