VENKATADRI
T. Chengalvaraya Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
A. Nataraja Chettiar – Respondent
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows. The defendant admitted that he took the above said promises for rent and continued till 14-12-1957 when he vacated it delivering the key of the premises to the plaintiff through his counsel which the plaintiff refused to receive. Therefore, according to the defendant, he was not liable to pay the rent. The first court found that there was surrender of the suit premises on 14-12-1957, and therefore the defendant was not liable to pay rent. On appeal it has been reversed.
3. The only question that has to be considered in this petition is whether there was surrender by the lessee as contended by him. It is settled law that the surrender may be either express or implied. Express surrender need
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.