ISMAI KANI ROWTHAN Vs. NAZARALI SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground urged and argued in this appeal is that the decree appealed against should have provided for payment to the appellant of compensation, before he is evicted from plots A, B and C, the measure of compensation being the present market value of the buildings erected thereon by him, after he had taken a lease of plots A and B in 1875 for a term of 20 years and of plot 0 in 1887 for a term of 3 years. In Exhibits B and C--counterparts of the leases relating to plots A and B--it is. expressly stated that the appellant took a lease of the lauds for constructing a building thereon for carrying on trade and in Exhibit D, which relates to plot 0, it is provided that the appellant, who was then erecting a thatched house on the plot, would remove the same and vacate the site in case the lessor (1 respondent's father) wanted it to construct a building thereon, for the Thaikkal to which the plots belonged.

(2.) In regard to plot C, no question of compensation therefore arises and the appeal so far as it relates to that plot is clearly unsustainable, firstly, because the 1 respondent prior to the institution of this suit did give notice to quit (Exhibit E), expressly stating therein that the land was required for erecting a building thereon for the Thaikkal and, secondly, because, according to the proper construction of Exhibit D, the condition relating to the site being required for the erection of a building thereon for the Thaikkal, was to apply only if the lessee was to be required to give up the site during the 3 years term of the lease.

(3.) As regards the buildings erected on plots A and B, it is not contended that they are of kind different from or of a value out of proportion to what was in the contemplation of the parties when the transaction of lease was entered into. Nor has any claim been made on behalf of the 1 respondent that the appellant is no longer at liberty to remove the buildings as he has not done so before the expiration of the term of the lease in 1895, or that, at any rate, at the option of the 1 respondent, the appellant must leave the building as it is, on payment to him of compensation for his right to remove the building, the measure of such compensation being the value, not of the building as it is, but of the materials (after the building should be demolished).