TELLICHERRY PICHI NAIDU Vs. CJEFFERSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had a lease of the land in dispute from the defendant for a period of five years for mica mining purposes on the 6th May 1903 with the follwing clauses: I bind myself to give you such leases as you may require from time to time after the expiration of this agreement on same conditions. Should I fail to do so, I bind myself to pay you all your expenses that you incur." The plaintiff entered into possession according to the terms of the lease and erected certain structures on the land with a view to carry on the mining operations. But sometime in 1915 the defendant obtained a decree for possession of the land inasmuch as the present plaintiff had not on the expiry of the term mentioned in the lease taken out any renewal. Thereupon the plaintiff called upon the defendant on the 4th November 1916 to execute a lease for five years with the clause for renewal in the terms set out above but the defendant refused to grant any such renewal. The lessee then instituted this suit.

(2.) Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff is entitled to such a lease as he asked for and gave a decree for specific performance. It was argued before the District Munsif that the decree in the suit of 1915 operated as res judicata but he held that in that suit no question as to the plaintiff s right to renewal was decided and that therefore the present suit was not barred. No argument has been addressed to us on this plea.

(3.) Another defence set up was that the plaintiff was guilty of laches in not asking for the renewal of the lease since the expiry of the first term in 1908 until 1916. But then he was in possession and was willing to carry out his part of the agreement and he was never called upon to take a renewal. The lower appellate Court has discussed this question fully and is right in holding that the plaintiff s right to enforce the agreement has not been lost by laches.