M CHENGIAH Vs. RAJAH OF KALAHASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot accept the view of the District Judge that what was dons by the lessor s agents was done with the intention of bringing pressure to bear upon the lessees and should be treated as an intimation by the lassor to the lessees that he intended to determine the tenancy.

(2.) I agree with Munro J. and I am of opinion that the lessor in this case by an unequivocal act intimated that he had elected to avail himself of the forfeiture. This intimation of the lessor s election having been communicated to the lessees was irrevocable and the parties could not by a subsequent agreement revive the old tenancy. See Jones v. Carter (1846) 15 M. and W. 718, Evans v. Wyatt (1862) 43 L.T. 176, and Smith s Leading cases notes to Dumpor s case Vol. I p. 32.

(3.) I also agree with Munro J. that the 2nd defendant is liable to the plaintiff for use and occupation. It may be that during the subsistence of the lease the plaintiff notwithstanding that the 2nd defendant was in occupation with the plaintiff s permission could only look to the 1st defendant, the lessee, for rent and could make no claim for use and occupation as against the 2nd defendant.