VARADAJA PERUMAL KOIL Vs. VMUNIAPPA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question of law, relating to the right of a party in default, to the recovery of the deposit paid by him under a contract. The suit is filed by a lessee for the return of his deposit and the trial Court rejected the claim holding that the amount became forfeited to the lessor. The lower Appellate Court took a different view and remanded the case for trial and disposal. The question is, was the order of remand rightly made The District Judge s decision remanding the suit is contained in the following passage of his judgment:

(2.) We have first to examine the terms of the lease deed. It bears the date, the 15th of April, 1920. The period of the lease was fixed as seven years and the lessee took possession. The lease was of agricultural land. The annual rent was agreed to be Rs. 3,210, to be paid in two instalments, a moiety before the 30th December and the remaining half before the 30th June of each year. Some further rent was to be paid in kind with which we are not concerned. The deed contains a provision for reentry, it being stipulated that in default of payment of rent, the landlord is to be at liberty to re-enter and take possession, not only of the land but also of any crops standing upon it. The lessee paid a deposit of Rs. 2,676 and the clauses that follow are very material. He is entitled to interest on that sum at 6 per cent. per annum and may adjust that interest against the rent payable on the 80th June of each year. Then as regards the principle of the deposit amount, it was not to be adjusted against the rent payable for the last, that is the seventh year of the lease.

(3.) The lessee made default in the payment of rent that fell due on the 30th June, 1921. The lessor made a demand for the rent which was not complied with. He immediately exercised his right of re-entry, and took possession of the land with the standing crops thereon. The lessee made some ineffectual protest, not in regard to the reentry but in respect of certain subsidiary matters. With that protest, we are not concerned in this appeal.