KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for rent, of property leased to defendants 1 to 6. Defendants 7 and 8 are the latter's sublessees. The plaintiff claims the contractual rent under Ext. Al. Defendants 1 to 6 contended that in a fair rent proceeding instituted by the sublessees the rent due to them has been reduced and therefore the rent that is due by them to the plaintiff should also be proportionately reduced. The Munsif repelled that defence as the plaintiff was no party to the fair rent; proceedings. But on appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed him and accepted the defence. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) The only question here is whether, a fixation of fair rent by the Land Tribunal between the intermediary and the tenant, without notice to the landlord, will bind the latter so as to reduce his claim against the intermediary proportionately. In Valid Raja v. Meenakshi Amma ( 1965 KLT 729 ) the identical question came before me, when I held that a proceeding to which the landlord was not made a party is of no consequence so far as his rights are concerned.

(3.) Counsel for respondent, trying to support the decision of the Subordinate Judge, contends that there is frustration of the contract for rent and therefore defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to relief under S.56 of the Contract Act. The matter is covered by authority in that in Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmchinder Singh ( AIR 1968 SC 1024 ) the Supreme Court has held that section not to apply to leases. The only case of frustration that might apply to leases is what is provided in S.103(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads: