Skip to content


G. Narainsawmy Naidu Garu Vs. Yerramali Ram Krishnaya, - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.479
AppellantG. Narainsawmy Naidu Garu
RespondentYerramali Ram Krishnaya, ;sunkara Sobhanadri, ;bulusu Krishnaya and ;mandapaka Vencatasubrayudu
Cases ReferredHarish Chunder Koondoo v. Mohinee Mohan Mitter
Excerpt:
lessor and lessee - lease of agricultural land--duty of lessor to put lessee in possession--land in possession of third party--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 108. - - section 108 of the transfer of property act imposes an obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession on a request being made to him to that effect, and it seems to me the principle of this enactment, which appears to be quite reasonable, is applicable to leases of agricultural land as well......section 108 of the transfer of property act imposes an obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession on a request being made to him to that effect, and it seems to me the principle of this enactment, which appears to be quite reasonable, is applicable to leases of agricultural land as well. and the case of the zemindar of vizianagaram v. behara suryanaraina patrulu 25 m. 587 does not lay down the law differently. but if the land is already in possession of a third person to the knowledge both of the lessor and the lessee, i should be inclined to hold that it would be the duty of the lessor to make it possible for the lessee to take possession by removing the third person from the possession thereof even though no express request for the purpose is made by the lessee......
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The District Munsif, in my opinion, is wrong in laying down as an absolute proposition of law that when the lessee is acquainted with the land leased to him, and there is no obstruction or likelihood of obstruction to his going1 upon the land and taking possession of it but he does not choose to take possession of the land, he is not liable for rent because the lessor who was never asked to put him in possession did not offer to put him in possession. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act imposes an obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession on a request being made to him to that effect, and it seems to me the principle of this enactment, which appears to be quite reasonable, is applicable to leases of agricultural land as well. And the case of the Zemindar of Vizianagaram v. Behara Suryanaraina Patrulu 25 M. 587 does not lay down the law differently. But if the land is already in possession of a third person to the knowledge both of the lessor and the lessee, I should be inclined to hold that it would be the duty of the lessor to make it possible for the lessee to take possession by removing the third person from the possession thereof even though no express request for the purpose is made by the lessee. And this seems to be the gist of the ruling in Harish Chunder Koondoo v. Mohinee Mohan Mitter 9 W.R. 582.

2. But in all these cases, except C.R.P. No. 479, there is evidence of promise on the part of the Receiver to put the particular lessees in possession, and the Receiver never put such lessees in possession. And this evidence also shows that a request was made for being, placed in possession and in all these cases there was apparently an obstruction in the way of the lessees taking possession.

3. The learned pleader for the petitioner does not press petitions Nos. 475 and 480. Petitions Nos. 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478 and 480 are dismissed with costs and 470 is dismissed without costs.

4. C.R.P. No. 479 is decreed with costs in both Courts as there is no evidence of any request being made by the lessee or of any obstruction to his taking possession.


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