A SWAMINATHA MUDALIAR Vs. SVRAMASWAMI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree that the case should go back. The words " agreement to lease " which were included in the definition of " lease " at least as far back as the Registration Act of 1866, long before the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act, and were apparently, intended to guard against the possibility that courts in India might otherwise extend the same degree of recognition to agreements to lease that is extended them pursuant to equitable principles in England, have apparently received a restricted construction in the recent decision of the Privy Council in Hemanla Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari Company (1919) L.R.46 I.A. 240 which approves of the construction put upon them by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Chief Justice in Panchanan Bose v. Ghandicharan Misra (1910) I.L.R. 37 C. 803; and it appears necessary to reconsider in the light of these decisions and on the facts of the case whether there was here any agreement to lease within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 of the Indian Registration Act. If there was, we are still bound by the decision of the Full Bench in Narayanan Chelly v. Muthiah Servai (1910) I.L.R. 35 M. 63 : 21 M.L.J. 44. Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

(2.) This is a suit in ejectment. The defendant had a lease of the premises, which expired in the beginning of October or November 1919. Negotiations began for the renewal of the lease. The parties failed to agree. Thereupon the plaintiff gave notice to terminate the tenancy and brought this suit.

(3.) The defendant filed a counter claim in which he asked that damages should be awarded to him for failure to give the lease as agreed upon.