Present : Bertram CT. and Schneider J. 1922.

MOHIDEEN v. ISEY,

52-D. C. Colombo, 2,306.

Sale by auctioneer under a mortgage decree-Purchaser gets title from date of transfer, and not from date of sale-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 201 and 289-Convenant by a lessor to pay a sum of money to lessee in the event of his selling the property pending lease-Not applicable to sale in execution-Claim for damages by lessee for mortgaging property after lease-Liability of lessee to pay rent though subtenants do not pay rent owing to lawful act of lessor.

A leased his land to B who did not register his lease. Thereafter A mortgaged it to C, who put the bond in suit and obtained judgment. The property was sold by an auctioneer under the mortgage decree.

Held, that the lessee (B) was bound to pay rent to the lessor (A) up to the date of the execution of the deed of transfer in the absence of any special agreement, as the purchaser's title does not relate back to the date of the actual sale as in the case of a Fiscal's sale.

The lessee alleged that after the notice of sale, his subtenants were disturbed in mind, and would not pay their rents.

Held, that this did not justify the lessee with holding rent from the lessor. " A tenant is not discharged from his legal obligations to his landlord by a purely lawful act on the part of that landlord, simply because in consequence of that set his own subtenants misconceived their own legal position."

A covenant by the lessor to pay a sum of money to his lessee, in the event of his selling the property pending the lease, does not apply to a sale in execution.

The lessee has no right to claim damages from his lessor for granting the mortgage (which was registered) after leasing it to the lessor.

THE facts are set out in the judgment of the District Judge (H. A. Loos, Esq.): -

The defendant leased certain premises to the plaintiff by the indenture of lease No. 83 dated October 80, 1918, for a period of five years, commencing from October 1, 1918, at a monthly rental of Rs. 280.

At the time of the execution of the indenture, the plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,600 in advance as the rent for the last nine months of the terms.

One of the covenants of the lease was to the effect that in the event of the sale of the leased premises by the defendant daring the pendency of the lease, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the advance of Rs. 2,500 or any portion thereof that may then be due and a sum of Rs. 1,500 as damages.

Under writ issued in the action No. 52,821 of this Court against the defendant in execution of a mortgage decree, the leased premises were sold on January 1, 1920),

The plaintiff accordingly lost the possession of the leased premises on March 5, 1920, on which date the Fiscal placed the purchaser in possession.

The plaintiff now claims the sum of Rs. 2,500 paid by him in advance, less a sum of Rs. 950 which he admits he has received therefrom from the defendant, together with the sum of Rs. 1500. the damages fixed by the indenture of lease, as payable to him in the event of a sale of the premises by the defendant.

As a matter of fact the plaintiff claims from the defendant in his prayer a sum of Rs. 4,550, but there is nothing to show what the amount in excess of that referred to above represents.

The defendant admits the execution of the indenture, of lease, and that it contains the covenants referred to above.

She also admits the sale of the leased premises, but denies that the plaintiff is entitled to any damages, for the sale was not a voluntary one, but a forced sale, and also states that the plaintiff omitted to register the lease in his favour, which was prior in date to the mortgage bond in execution of the decree upon which the premises were sold, and that the default of the plaintiff in that respect disentitles him to claim damages.

By way of further answer, the defendant states that in