KALYAN SINGH Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in respect of the year 1316 Fasli brought by the landlord against a tenant. The defence in so far as this appeal is concerned was, that in the year 1315 Fasli the landlord and the tenant came to an arrangement, under which the tenant agreed to surrender the land at the end of the year, and the landlord consented to it, and that, therefore, the tenant was not responsible for the rent of 1316 Fasli.

(2.) It appears from the findings of the Courts below, that in 1315 Fasli the tenant was in difficulties about his rent, that a third party-intervened, and made an arrangement between the parties, under which the tenant was to cultivate only for 1315 and to relinquish at the end of that year, and the landlord was to consent to that arrangement in consideration of the third party paying up the rent due from the tenant. The rent was so paid by the third party, and the landlord and the tenant both agreed to the arrangement to surrender. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1316 Fasli the tenant did not cultivate the land. As a matter of fact, it lay uncultivated. There was, therefore, a surrender by the tenant. In these circumstances, the lower Courts have dismissed the suit for rent.

(3.) On appeal it is urged that under Clause (2) of Section 83 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant remained liable for the rent of 1316 Fasli, because he had failed to give the landlord notice in writing of his intention to surrender before the 1 day of April, and because the landlord had not let the land to another tenant, and had not taken it into his own cultivation or use.