K. NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. A. KUNHANMANNADIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision in second appeal of Shahabuddin, J. The subject -matter is four items of landed property to which the Malabar Tenancy Act (hereinafter called " the Act ") applies. The property had been leased by the jenmi to the Peralikunnath tarwad ; at the end of the term of the lease (whenever it may have been), the lands were thereupon held upon a tenancy from year to year ; on May 15, 1912, the tarwad sub -leased the property to defendants 2 to 5, who assigned their interest to the first defendant, who, in turn, sub -let item 4 of the four items of property to defendants 6 to 12; the tarwad fell into arrear with the rent due to the jenmi, who assigned those arrears to the plaintiff; he obtained a decree for the amount of those arrears and, in execution of his decree the rights of Peralikunnath tarwad were sold and purchased. by the plaintiff; whereupon, in effect, he stood in the shoes of the tarwad. In the suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Walluvanad, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed from defendants 1 to 12 possession of the four items of property and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was decreed, possession being directed to be given upon the plaintiff paying some prescribed amounts by way of munpattom and for improvements. An appeal, by the first defendant, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, was dismissed, but the amount payable for improvements by the plaintiff was increased. The second appeal by the first defendant to this Court was dismissed by Shahabuddin, J. No appeal was preferred by defendants 2 to 12. This is an appeal by the first defendant alone.

(2.) IT was not suggested that the original lease contained a provision by which the demise became terminated or forfeited upon the lessee sub -letting the property or any part of it or upon rent falling into arrear.

(3.) IN the Courts below and in second appeal to this Court the questions arising appear to have been considered from the aspect whether the first defendant was a" cultivating verumpattamdar " as defined by Section 3(w)(o) of the Act and in respect of whom Section 14 applies. In substance, the findings were that since the first defendant had sub -let item 4, of the four suit items of property to defendants 6 to 12 he was not cultivating the whole holding and consequently was not a cultivating verumpattamdar entitled to the benefits conferred by the Act, including fixity of tenure prescribed in Section 10.