Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 243
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Macnair
ANAND – Appellant
Versus
PANDURANG – Respondent
Decided on : 08-12-1927
The court clarified that in the absence of a right of forfeiture, the relevant provision in the Tenancy Act deemed the tenant to have surrendered the holding, impacting the tenant's rent liability.
Headnote:
Forfeiture - Tenancy Act - Surrender of Holding
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant's occupancy tenure of certain fields had ended due to non-cultivation and unpaid rent for over two years before the Tenancy Act of 1920.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the malguzar did not waive any right of forfeiture as there was no such right to waive. The court interpreted Section 35(4) of the Tenancy Act of 1898, which deemed the tenant to have surrendered the holding in the circumstances considered, relieving the tenant of rent liability after the surrender.
Issues: The main issue was whether the malguzar waived the right of forfeiture, and the court's interpretation of the relevant legal provision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no right of forfeiture to be waived, and the provision in the Tenancy Act deemed the tenant to have surrendered the holding, relieving the tenant of rent liability after the surrender.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the appellant.
Macnair, J C—The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the defendant's occupancy tenure of certain fields has come to an end and that the defendant is not entitled to possession of these fields. There are findings of fact that the tenant left his holding uncultivated and the rent of it unpaid for a period of more than two years before the Tenancy Act of 1920 came into force.
2. The only point which is urged before me is that the malguzar by applying in execution for ejectment of the tenant waived his right of forfeiture. In my opinion there was no right of forfeiture] which the malguzar could waive. Section 35(4), Ten. Act of 1898 states that the tenant in the circumstances I am considering shall be deemed to have surrendered his holding. By this provision the tenant escapes liability for rent after the time at which the surrender is deemed to have taken place. The malguzar cannot at his option treat the tenancy as still subsisting and make the tenant liable for the rent of subsequent years. He can, of course again lease the land to the tanant but it is clear that he has not done so in this case.
3. No other ground is urged and the appeal is dismissed. Costs on appellant.
Final Result : Dismissed
