Sustainability of claim for remission of rent.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 49 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram. The plaintiff Sri Amuruvi Perumal Devasthanam at Teralandur, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,744-11-4, being arrears of lease payable by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, decreed the suit for Rs. 7,422. Now the appeal is filed for the disallowed portion of the claim by the appellant.

The facts in this case are the following:

The plaintiff-devasthanam possesses the properties described in schedules A to A-2 to the plaint. At the time of the suit the plaintiff was represented by its trustee Sri Raghavan, who was validly appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department. The devasthanam as usual leased the suit lands in open auction held on 26th June, 1952 as per the Rules framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for three faslis, 1362, 1363 and 1364 (1952, 1953 and 1954) subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the lease auction notice. In the auction held on 26th June, 1952, in the presence of the inspector by the devasthanam authorities, the second defendant was the highest bidder for 2,536 kalams of paddy and 323 bundles of straw as annual rental for the said lands. The said bid was accepted by the plaintiff-devasthanam and was duly confirmed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras: Accordingly, a lease was executed on 31st August, 1952 by the plaintiff-devasthanam, which was then represented by the Managing Trustee, N. Subramania Pillai, and the defendants. Though the second defendant was the highest bidder, the first defendant also joined with the second defendant in executing the lease-deed and has also given his properties as security for the due performance of the conditions of the lease. The main terms and conditions of the lease are: (a) that the defendants should deliver unconditionally 2,536 kalams of paddy and 323 bundles of straw as rent due for each of the faslis 1362, 1363 and 1364 ; (b) that the defendants should not under any circumstances claim any remission in the rent due and payable to devasthanam authorities and (c)that the defendants also have no right or claim to remission on behalf of sub-tenants under their responsibility. The plaintiff further states, that at the time when the devasthanam properties were leased in open auction on 26th June, 1952, the defendants were also aware of the agrarian conditions prevailing in the Tanjore district and the contemplation of the Government to introduce a legislation in regard to the quantum of the rent payable by the tenants to their landlords. As expected, the Governor of Madras promulgated Ordinance IV of 1952, called the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyals (Protection) Ordinance, 1952 on 23rd August, 1952. Therefore, on the date of the execution of the lease-deed, the defendants were aware of Ordinance IV of 1952. After the execution of the lease-deed the defendants committed default in paying the full rent payable to the plaintiff with the result that at the end of the lease there was a large accumulation of arrears of paddy and bundles of straw, which the plaintiff estimates at a sum of Rs. 21,744-11-4. After the expiry of the lease period, the defendants surrendered posses-sion of the demised lands, but neglected to pay the arrears and failed to comply with the terms of the lease-deed. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to clear the arrears due and payable by them to the plaintiff-devasthanam but they did not accede to the request with the result that the plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of the said amount from the defendants.

The defence set up by the respondents (defendants) was that at the time when they entered into the lease agreement with the plaintiff-devasthanam, Ordinance IV of 1952, had come into force and the Ordinance was subsequently repealed and replaced by a regular Act XI