A court may grant relief against forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent on equitable grounds, even if the conditions laid down in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act are not strictly met.

PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR, J. :-

The appeal is by the defendants in O. S. No. 58 of 1951, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, regarding the granting of a conditional decree for possession to the plaintiff and denying the defendants right to occupancy in the suit lands, measuring some 472 acres. The memorandum of cross-objections is by the plaintiff regarding the learned Subordinate Judges granting the defendants relief against forfeiture and allowing their lease for 35 years under the Varthamanam, dated 9-5-1936 and the compromise decree, to continue, provided they paid up all the rents, including the barred rents and costs.

2. The facts were briefly these : The plaintiff, Thayammal, had filed the suit for possession of the suit properties, measuring 800 kuzhis or, 472 acres, and situated in the hill in Erasakkanaickanur in the Erasakkanaickanur Zamindari and growing cardamom and other hill crops now, from the defendants, who were the representatives of one Sultan Ahmed Badruddin Rowther. the first defendant being his widow, the second and third defendants his children, and the fourth defendant, the agent of defendants 1 to 3, the heirs of Badruddin. The plaintiff claimed occupancy rights in the suit lands on the strength of an unregistered cowle dated 25-3-1934 (not produce) granted in her favour by the Zamindarini of Erasakkanaickanur, Akkulu Ammal, the grandmother of her husband.

The defendants claimed under a varthamanam letter dated 9-5-1936 the original of Ex. A-1. executed by the plaintiffs husband, Kadrivel Naicken, as agent of Akkulu Ammal, in favour of Badruddin, for 35 years, paying rent at varying rates on the 30th June of every year. The defendants contention was that the alleged cowle of 1934 in the plaintiffs favour was bogus one executed by the Zamindarini in favour of her grandsons wife in order to bypass the Prakasam Report, which was then on the anvil and was expected to be passed soon, and that the varthamanam letter in favour of Badruddin was real and was granted by the plaintiffs husband as the agent of the Zamindarini.

So, they claimed that Badruddin and they had occupancy rights in the suit lands. The plaintiffs case was that this contention of the defendants was stale and untenable in view of the fact that Badruddin had filed O. S. No. 14 of 1939 on the file of the lower Court for specific performance of the contract of lease evidenced by the varthamanam letter, the original of Ex. A-1, and had made the zamindarini the first defendant, the plaintiffs husband the second defendant, the plaintiff the third defendant, and that the suit was finally compromised on 26-10-1939, and that, under clause 10 of the compromise decree, Badruddin had specifically stated that he would pay the rents stipulated under the Varthamanam to the plaintiff, the third defendant, and that the third defendant should confirm the lease agreement and act up to it, though that agreement was with the second defendant, her husband, as the agent of the zamindarini.

3. The defendants set up some unconvincing story of mistake of law and fact vitiating the compromise. But the fourth defendant, as D.W. 1, had to admit "I found nothing objectionable in the compromise when I read it." The lower Court held the compromise decree to be clinching and conclusive and, therefore, held that the plaintiff was the person entitled to the occupancy rights in the suit lands and not, the defendants who were merely her tenants, though they had been granted the lease for 35 years on the same rents as stipulated in the cowle to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had sued not only for possession but also for damages of Rs. 8,496 being the rent of six years past at Rs. 1,416 per year, the admitted rent, under the decree and the varthamanam alleging that it had not been paid and that the rights of the defendants to a lease till 9-5-1971 had become forfeited. The defendants had claimed that they had paid the entire arrears in cash and by delivery of a Ford Car w