Skip to content


The District Board of Tanjore Vs. Vythilinga Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1224(1); 31Ind.Cas.919
AppellantThe District Board of Tanjore
RespondentVythilinga Chetty
Cases Referred and Gopalan Nair v. Kunhan Menon
Excerpt:
lessor and lessee - lease--suit for possession--promise to renew, effect of--ejectment. - .....accept a registered renewal deed for rent for ten years on the same terms of exhibit i, but such 'a contract does not contain a. promise by the lessor not to eject the lessee on the expiry of the term even though the lessee did not execute the new rent deed on the expiry of the first term.2. the lower appellate court's decree is reversed and that of the district munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate court on the defendant.
Judgment:

1. Assuming (without deciding) that there is in this case a covenant by the lessor to renew which is legally enforceable against him in a suit for specific performance, such a covenant cannot be pleaded in bar to a suit for possession brought by the lessor on the expiry of the term mentioned in the lease-deed, Exhibit E. See Achutan Nambudri v. Koman Nair 13 M.L.J. 217; Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 29 M.P 336 : 16 M.L.J. 395 : 1 M.L.T. 153 and Gopalan Nair v. Kunhan Menon 2 M.L.T. 161. The covenant in Exhibit E, if enforceable against the lessor, would no doubt be a contract on his part to accept a registered renewal deed for rent for ten years on the same terms of Exhibit I, but such 'a contract does not contain a. promise by the lessor not to eject the lessee on the expiry of the term even though the lessee did not execute the new rent deed on the expiry of the first term.

2. The lower Appellate Court's decree is reversed and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court on the defendant.


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