GOVINDASAMI PADAYACHI AND ORS. Vs. KALYANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S. No. 388 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangiman, who failed in both the Courts below, are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3000 as damages from the defendants who are his lessees on the ground that the lease deeds prohibit them from raising any crop other than paddy but that they had raised, contrary to the terms of the lease deeds, sugarcane in the suit property in the year 1969 and cut and carried away the sugarcane crop without giving the lessor's share. According to the plaintiff on account of the sugarcane cultivation, the utility of the soil has been much impaired and the defendants have enriched themselves unlawfully by raising sugarcane crops in the lands contrary to the terms of the leased deeds. The plaintiff therefore claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 1000 per year for three faslis from 1377 to 1379.

(2.) THE substantial defence to the suit was that there Was no prohibition in the lease deeds for raising sugarcane crops in the leasehold lands, that the sugarcane crop Was raised with the knowledge, acquiescence and consent of the plaintiff, that by raising sugarcane crop, the fertility of the soil had not been impaired and that in any event, the plaintiff is entitled to collect only the rent agreed under the lease deeds.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the parties went to trial and adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial Court held that the lease deed. Exhibits B -4, B -5 and B -6 under which the defendants are cultivating the lands permit the lessee to raise only punja crops in the land, that sugar -cane crop is not punja crop and that the defendants have raised sugarcane crop in the leasehold lands contrary to the terras of the lease deeds. It also found that the raising of sugarcane crop by the defendants was without the knowledge and consent of the lessor, the plaintiff, and that, therefore the defendants had incurred a liability to pay damages for unauthorised user of the property by raising sugarcane crop, at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per year claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the admission contained in Exhibit A. 9, a notice issued by the defendants that the value of the sugarcane crop was Rs. 6,000. On the question as to whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 the trial Court took the view that the suit being one for damages the defendants are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the said Act which will apply only to suits for arrears of rent or proceedings for eviction on the ground of non -payment of rent. In this view, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit as prayed for. On appeal, the lower appellate Court substantially had agreed with the findings given by the trial Court and affirmed except for the variation in the amount, the judgment and decree of the trial Court.