SURISETTI BUTCHAYYA Vs. RAJA PARTHASARATHY APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a consolidated Appeal against two decrees, both dated the 14th April 1916, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, affirming two decrees, both dated the 30th March 1914, of the Court of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam, which affirmed two decrees, both dated the 25th April 1913, of the Court of the Suits Deputy Collector, Kistna district, Ellore, made in Summary Suits Nos. 376 and 377 of 1912.

(2.) THOUGH the parties in each of these suits, as well as the property affected, are different, the questions raised for decision in both Appeals are practically identical, so that the decision made in one disposes of the other.

(3.) SOME of the provisions of this lease demand consideration. It contains a recital that, in an auction held by the lessors, on whose behalf, of course, the Receiver acted, the lease had, been made. The practice prevailing on this estate in reference to such lands as were demised was proved to be this: that when a lease was about to expire, or had but recently expired, an auction was held. Those who desired to become lessees of the land previously demised, bid at this auction, and the new lease was granted to the highest bidder, whether he was the old lessee or another. There was thus no custom of continuity of occupation. The outgoing lessee had no privilege or advantage. It is further recited that as the lessees had executed a muchilka in favour of the lessors agreeing to cultivate the said lanka lands under the conditions set forth in the lease, the lessors, had "written and given their patta." One of these conditions was that as regards planting seeds, turfs, grass, etc., and enlarging the extent of land, the lessees were to regard all the orders the lessors had issued or might issue. Another condition was that the lessees were to continue to cultivate only 110 acres and 85 cents. A third, that if the Government should, during the lease, take any of the demised lands for conservance works or any other purpose, the lessees would get a remission for that land of only the average cist that might accrue with reference to the ijara cist. That in the event of the Government taking lands with crops upon them the lessees might receive compensation from the Government for loss of profits, but would not be given any compensation out of the estate funds for such crops. A fourth condition, that if within the term silts should be formed and loss be caused by erosion, the lessees must bear the loss and pay the whole cist, etc., every year, and that they were not to apply for remission on any ground whatever. Again, the lessees were to bind themselves to all the steps the lessors might take against them under the Madras Rent Recovery Act, VIII of 1865, in regard to the collection of arrears. These are distress, sale or eviction. Another condition was that the lessees were not to transfer their ijara rights to others without the lessors' consent, and again, another, that neither the lessees nor the ryot who cultivates it, nor the merchant who purchases it, nor anybody else, shall take the tobacco and other produce raised on the ijara lanka to other places than the ijara lanka.