RANGA RAMANUJACHARIAR Vs. SRINIVASA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only arguable ground in this revision petition relates to the contention that as defendants 1 and 2 had sold their occupancy rights on lands Nos. 67 nd 68 to the 4th defendant in the beginning of Fasli 1321 (1-8-1911) and gave notice of that sale at once to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable for the rent of Fasli 1321.

(2.) Both sides admit that the Estates Land Act does not apply to the relations between the parties. So, Section 146 Clause (1) and Section 145 of that Act cannot govern the rights of the parties. Nor can Section 108. Clause (j) of the Transfer of Property Act apply as agricultural tenancies are outside the scope of that Act--(see, Section 117) unless the Local Government notifies to that effect.

(3.) Dr. Rash Behari Ghose in his argument as the Appellant s Advocate in Sasi Bhushun Raha v. Tara Lal Singh Deo Bahadur (1895) I.L.R. 22 C. 494, contended that in the case of a tenant with rights of permanent occupancy the tenant is entitled to sell the holding and that "it is the common law of India that on transfer of a tenure with notice, the lessee ceases to be liable for rent." The validity of that contention was not decided upon by the Court in that case as it was unnecessary to do so. I am inclined to agree with that contention and I think that that principle of the common law of India is practically adopted in the Estates Land Act with a slight variation in favour of the landlord. If it is a correct principle to apply, the defendants 1 and 2 will be liable only for about one month s rent (between 1st July and 1st August 1911) due proportionately on lands, Nos. 67 and 68, so far as Fasli 1321 is concerned the 4th defendant, being liable for the balance of the rent due on those lands in that Fasli.