Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
B.Ahmed Maracair
Versus
Muthuvalliappa Chettiar
Second Appeal No. 1077 of 1957
Decided On : 3 December, 1959
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Lease - Interruption of quiet enjoyment by lessor - Effect - Suspension or abatement of rent - Apportionment of rent - Set-off of damages against rent - Unauthorized collection of rent by lessor from sub-tenants - Consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a landlord, filed a suit against the respondent, a tenant, for recovery of rent for the third and last year of a five-year lease. The respondent claimed that there was interruption of quiet enjoyment by the appellant, who had collected rent from the sub-tenants directly, and that he was not liable to pay the full rent.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court found that there was interruption of quiet enjoyment by the appellant, that the respondent did not surrender possession of the lands or authorize the appellant to collect the rents from the sub-tenants, and that the appellant unlawfully collected the rents due from the sub-tenants to the respondent in spite of the objections by the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether there was interruption of quiet enjoyment by the appellant? 2. Whether the respondent was liable to pay the full rent? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to collect rent from the sub-tenants directly? 4. Whether the respondent was entitled to set off damages against rent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was interruption of quiet enjoyment by the appellant, as he had collected rent from the sub-tenants directly, despite the respondent's objections. 2. The court held that the respondent was not liable to pay the full rent, as the interruption of quiet enjoyment by the appellant had suspended or abated the rent. 3. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to collect rent from the sub-tenants directly, as the respondent had not surrendered possession of the lands or authorized the appellant to do so. 4. The court held that the respondent was entitled to set off damages against rent, as the appellant's unauthorized collection of rent from the sub-tenants had caused him loss.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, holding that he was not entitled to claim the balance of the lease amount from the respondent.
JUDGMENT :- This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Cuddalore in A. S. No. 104 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O. S. No. 97 of 1954.
2. The appellant before me Ahmad Maraicair is the owner of Ac. 76-47 cents of Nanja lands in four villages and a cocoanut garden and a bungalow in the village of Keelachavadi. He intended to go to Java on business. Therefore, he executed a re-filtered lease deed Ex. A. 1 dated 21-4-1951 in favour of the respondent Muthuvalliappa Chettiar for a period of five years for an annual rent of 1825 kalams of paddy and Rs. 100 cash.
Subsequently, the parties entered into a fresh agreement of lease Ex. A-2 whereby the period of lease was reduced to three years. The dispute between the parties, so far as these legal proceedings are concerned, has been in respect of rent payable for the third and last year, as the rent payable for the first two years has admittedly been paid. The case for the appellant, who filed O. S. 97 of 1954 and out of which this second appeal arises, was that there was some damage on account of floods only in respect of Ac. 17-48 cents of lands, that in the rest of the lands there was normal harvest and the lessee realised more than 300 and odd bags of kuruvai paddy from the sub-tenants.
His further case was that the lessee had informed his (lessors) kariyasthar that he could not attend to collection of rent on account of personal difficulties and that as the period of lease itself was coming to an end, the lessor himself could collect the Poengar paddy for the second crop directly from the tenants and give credit to the same towards rent payable for the third year. The lessor claims to have collected 683 kalams and 10 marakkals of paddy alone from the sub-tenants. So giving credit for the same an kist paid by the lessee, the suit was filed for recover of Rs. 4,800/- from the lessee.
3. On the other hand, the case of the lessee Muthuvalliappa Chettiar was : The Kuruvai crops were damaged on account of floods during harvest time. He gave timely notice to the lessor (plaintiff) to be present at the harvest and to share the waram but the plaintiff did not turn up. He realised only 90 kalams of paddy by way of rent from the subtenants in respect of kuruvai crop. The plaintiff high-handedly took possession of the bungalow and prevailed on the sub-tenants to pay the rent directly to him.
The plaintiff was not authorised or permitted to collect the second crop rent from the sub-tenants directly, and he had committed breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment and therefore was not entitled to recover any amount towards the rent for the third year. He has paid Rs. 1062-7-0 towards kist and after deducting a sum of Rs. 720 being the value of 96 kalams of paddy, the balance due to him from the plaintiff is Rs. 342-7-0., for recovery of which and for rendition of accounts, the lessee had filed O. S. No. 17 of 1955. The defence of the plaintiff in that suit was the same as the allegations in his plaint in O. S. No. 97 of 1954.
4. The trial Court tried both the suits together and found that the annual rent of 1825 kalams of paddy was not payable in two equal shares for each crop as contended by the lessor, that the lessee collected more than 300 and odd bags of kuruvai paddy for the third year of the lease and not merely 96 kalams of kuruvai as contended by him, that the lessor realised 46 kalams of paddy as proportionate waram for 17 acres 48 cents of land in respect of the first crop, that after making deductions for the failure of crops etc., the lessor would be entitled to 593 and odd kalams of paddy for the third year according to the terms of the lease deed, that the value of paddy claimed in the plaint is correct, and that the lessor is not entitled to the balance of rent as he caused interruption and obstruction to the enjoyment of the lands by the lessee and the alleged surre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
