GURUSHANTAPPA GURAPPA KHOBBANNAVAR Vs. MALLAVA SANGAPPA CHAVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued for rent under a rent-note dated the 7 of September 1860, and for damages for breach of one of the terms of the rent-note, whereby the tenant was prohibited from letting the property to others under an agreement to pay rent. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the representatives of the tenant and admittedly they have sub-let the premises. The trial Court considered that the plaintiff had not proved that he was entitled to anything more than nominal damages and awarded one pie, but omitted to consider the plaintiff's claim for rent. In appeal Rs. 6O for three years rent were allowed and an additional sum of Rs. 40 per year was allowed as damages for three years, on the ground that there was a clear breach of the covenant, and that as the tenant was making a profit of Rs. 80 a year, it was clear that the landlord was in equity entitled to damages. That, I am afraid, is not he correct principle on which a claim for damages can be assessed. There is only one principle, viz., that the plaintiff must prove that he has sufferer such damages as are necessary and just consequences of the breach of the covenant. In the lease where there is a covenant not to assign and the tenant assigns without leave, then clearly the landlord suffers damage, because he is deprived of the liability of the original lessee under the terms of the lease. Again, if there is a covenant not to sub-let and the tenant sub-lets without leave to a careless person whereby the premises are damaged, then clearly the landlord would be entitled to recover damages against the tenant for sub-letting without leave. But the mare fact that the sub-letting results in a profit to the tenant would not cause damage to the landlord. Therefore the plaintiff in this case has not proved that lie has suffered any damage owing to the tenant recovering a higher rent from the sub-tenant. The trial Judge was perfectly right in awarding one pie as nominal damages.

(2.) The decree, therefore, must be amended. There will be a decree for the plaintiff for Bs. 60 as rent and one pie as damages.

(3.) Costs throughout in proportion. Shah, J.