Skip to content


Ramakrishna Mallay Vs. Ramakrishna Mallay Baburaya Alias Venkatesha Hegade and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.947
AppellantRamakrishna Mallay
RespondentRamakrishna Mallay Baburaya Alias Venkatesha Hegade and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Mahalakshmi Amma v. Lakshmi
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - lease prior to 1882--forfeiture for non-payment of rent--relief against forfeiture--landlord's act--lease not providing for period of grace--loss of improvements--equitable relief--plea, of payment not proved. - .....v. krishna kamti 6 m.k 159 following kottal uppi v. edavalath thathan nambudiri 6 m.h.c.r. 258 the tenant is entitled to relief. the cases relied on by the plaintiff (the landlord) are distinguishable. in narayana kamti v. handu shetty 15 m.l.j. 210 a long period was allowed, some eight months, after default, before the forfeiture was to take effect and, apparently, there was no stipulation that the tenant should, on default, loss the value of his improvements. in mahalakshmi amma v. lakshmi (1911) 2 m.w.n. 385 : 12 ind. cas. 456 a period of grace was also allowed. there was, no doubt, a stipulation in that case that the tenant, on default, should lose the value of his improvements but the effect of this stipulation is not discussed in the judgment.2. we do not think the fact that the.....
Judgment:

1. The question whether a tenant is entitled to relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent must depend on the facts of the particular case. Here we think, on the authority of the decision in Subbaraya Kamti v. Krishna Kamti 6 M.k 159 following Kottal Uppi v. Edavalath Thathan Nambudiri 6 M.H.C.R. 258 the tenant is entitled to relief. The cases relied on by the plaintiff (the landlord) are distinguishable. In Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty 15 M.L.J. 210 a long period was allowed, some eight months, after default, before the forfeiture was to take effect and, apparently, there was no stipulation that the tenant should, on default, loss the value of his improvements. In Mahalakshmi Amma v. Lakshmi (1911) 2 M.W.N. 385 : 12 Ind. Cas. 456 a period of grace was also allowed. There was, no doubt, a stipulation in that case that the tenant, on default, should lose the value of his improvements but the effect of this stipulation is not discussed in the judgment.

2. We do not think the fact that the tenant sets up a plea of payment which he fails to prove, necessarily, in itself, disentitles him to equitable relief.

3. We accept the finding and modify the decree of the lower Appellate Court in accordance with the finding. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs throughout.

4. In default of payment of rent and interest within the time allowed, the plaintiff may recover possession.


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