Skip to content


Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Vs. Malla Ramunaidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad419
AppellantSri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur
RespondentMalla Ramunaidu
Excerpt:
- .....out of an application to scale down a decree for rent under madras act 4 of 1938. the tenant paid the kattubadi for faslis 1347 and 1346 within the time stipulated under section 15. he did not pay anything by way of interest on kuttubadi. the landholder contended in the court below that the deposit was bad because nothing was deposited by way of interest for these faslis. the lower court held that this was immaterial, a decision which cannot be supported as a proposition of law. but i find in the record no materials upon which it could be held that interest was in fact due on the arrears of kattubadi for those faslis. no doubt, in respect of rent under the estates land act, section 61 of that act imposes a statutory liability for interest on arrears, but there is no such statutory.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Wadsworth, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an application to scale down a decree for rent under Madras Act 4 of 1938. The tenant paid the kattubadi for Faslis 1347 and 1346 within the time stipulated under Section 15. He did not pay anything by way of interest on kuttubadi. The landholder contended in the Court below that the deposit was bad because nothing was deposited by way of interest for these faslis. The lower Court held that this was immaterial, a decision which cannot be supported as a proposition of law. But I find in the record no materials upon which it could be held that interest was in fact due on the arrears of kattubadi for those faslis. No doubt, in respect of rent under the Estates Land Act, Section 61 of that Act imposes a statutory liability for interest on arrears, but there is no such statutory provision with reference to kattubadi and the ordinary rules of the Interest Act would apply. If the plaintiff wished to non-suit the applicant on the ground of his failure to pay interest for the arrears of those faslis, he should have let in evidence that there was such demand as would have made interest payable. In fact, a receipt was given for the amount paid as for the kattubadi of these two faslis with no indication that there was any deficiency. In such circumstances I am of opinion that it has not been established that the deposit for either of these two faslis was deficient, though I do not subscribe to the view of the learned District Munsif that when interest is due, that interest will not be included in the rent for the purpoce of Act 4 of 1938. In the result therefore the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.


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