B AHMED MARACAIR Vs. MUTHUVALLIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned District Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 104 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O. S. No. 97 of 1954.

(2.) The appellant before me Ahmad Maraicair is the owner of Ac. 76-47 cents of Nanja lands in four villages and a cocoanut garden and a bungalow in the village of Keelachavadi. He intended to go to Java on business. Therefore, he executed a registered lease deed Ex. A. 1 dated 21-4-1951 in favour of the respondent Muthuvalliappa Chettiar for a period of five years for an annual rent of 1825 kalams of paddy and Rs. 100 cash. Subsequently, the parties entered into a fresh agreement of lease Ex. A-2 whereby the period of lease was reduced to three years. The dispute between the parties, so far as these legal proceedings are concerned, has been in respect of rent payable, for the third and last year, as the rent payable for the 6rst two years has admittedly been paid. The case for the appellant, who filed O.S. 97 of 1954 and out of which this second appeal arises, was that there was some damage on account of floods only in respect of Ac. 17-48 cents of lands, that in the rest of the lands there was normal harvest and the lessee realised more than 300 and odd bags of kuruvai paddy from the sub-tenants. His further case was that the lessee had informed his (lessor's) kariyasthar that he could not attend to collection of rent on account of personal difficulties and that as the period of lease itself was coming to an end, the lessor himself could collect the Poengar paddy for the second crop directly from the tenants and give credit to the same towards rent payable for the third year. The lessor claims to have collected 683 kalams and 10 marakkals of paddy alone from the sub-tenants. So giving credit for the Game and lost paid by the lessee, the suit was filed for recovery, of Rs. 4,800/- from the lessee.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the lessee Muthuvalliappa Chettiar was : The Kuruvai crops were damaged on account of floods during harvest time. He gave timely notice to the lessor (plaintiff) to be present at the harvest and to share the waram but the plaintiff did not turn up. He realised only 90 kalams of paddy by way of rent from the subtenants in respect of kuruvai crop. The plaintiff high-handedly took possession of the bungalow and prevailed on the subtenants to pay the rent directly to him. The plaintiff was not authorised or permitted to collect the second crop rent from the sub-tenants directly, and he had committed breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment and therefore was not entitled to recover any amount towards the lent for the third year. He has paid Rs. 1062-7-0 towards kist and after deducting a sum of Rs. 720 being the value of 96 kalams of paddy, the balance due to him from the plaintiff is Rs. 342-7-0-, for recovery of which and for rendition of accounts, the lessee had filed O. S. No. 17 of 1955. The defence of the plaintiff in that suit was the same as the allegations in his plaint in O.S. No. 97 of 1954.