The judgment established the admissibility of an unregistered lease-deed, the establishment of tenancy from year to year, and the transferability of a claim for rent due under the Transfer of Property Act.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court who dismissed the Civil Revision Petition tiled by the defendant (petitioner and appellant) against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in S.C.S. No. 14S0 of 1913.

2. The defendant was lessee of a garden for live years under a registered lease-deed, Ex. B. The lease term expired in 1908. Then he executed an unregistered lease-deed, Ex. A in June 1909. But that lease-deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The rent reserved for the whole garden under Ex. B seems to have been Rs. 280 per annum. The plaintiffs originally owned one-fourth share in the garden and he purchased the other one-fourth share on 23rd October 1912 from the then owner thereof.

3. The suit was brought for rent due from the 1st September 1911 till 14th November 1912 at Rs. 210 per annum with interest and costs and also Rs. 50 damages for the alleged injury caused to the land by the defendants acts. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree for Rs. 290, and proportionate costs disallowing the claim for the Rs. 50 damages.

4. The defendant denied that he was a tenant of the lands but it is found by the Subordinate that he did pay rent as tenant and that he has been enjoying the lands all along. It is a pity that the learned Subordinate Judge did not give a definite finding as to whether the defendant paid rent after the expiry of the term in Ex. B and, if so, at what rate he was paying rent and whether as mentioned in the plaint the rent was paid as mentioned in the unregistered-deed Ex. A. till the end of August 1911, There is however, the evidence of the plaintiffs 2nd witness that the defendant used to pay the rent due to his master in whose favour Ex. A. was executed. Though Ex A. is inadmissible to prove the tenancy or its terms, the fact of payment of rent by the tenant after 1908-and the receipt of rent by the landlord will not establish a tenancy from year to year the annual rent due under such tenancy being ascertainable from the amount of rent paid and received.

5. If then the landlord was receiving Rs. 210 rent a year from 1908 till 1st September 1911 as in the plaint and as seems to be suggested by the evidence of P.W. 2 in cross-examination, that fact establishes the tenancy from year to year at the yearly rent of Rs. 210, and we need not, as we should not, resort to Ex. A to find out the terms of the yearly tenancy. Taking it, however, that it is not proved that the defendant paid rent after the expiry of the term in Ex. B, he was a tenant holding over. In that view, he was liable for compensation for use and occupation as regards 1/4th share in the property to the plaintiffs and as regards the other 3/4ths share to the plaintiffs predecessors in title in respect of the other 3/4 ths share, between the 1st September 1911 and 23rd October 1912 till 14th November 1912. The plaintiffs claimed that under their sale deed the rent or compensation due to their predecessors in title between the 8th December 1911 and 23rd October 1912 for the said 3/4 ths share has been transferred to them under Ex. E. Mr. V.C. Seshachariar contends that such a transfer was a transfer of a mere right to sue and is therefore invalid. If, as I hold there is evidence to prove the defendants payment of rent at Rs. 210 a year after 1908, he is a tenant from year to year at that rate and the transfer of a claim for rent due is not a transfer of a mere right to sue but a transfer of an actionable claim. If, however, he was not a tenant from year to year but what is called a "tenant by sufferance," then the question arises as to^ whether the right to sue such a person for compensation for use and occupation is an actionable claim or a mere right to sue. The compensation for use and occupation is, in English cases, loosely, called "rent or fair rent or occupation rent. See the Metropolitan Railway Co., v. Deffries 2 Q.B.D. 387. The English Courts