A RAMA RAO Vs. ATHIMMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues for possession of the plaint land on the ground that he terminated the lease granted to the defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the clause with regard to the right of re-entry was repugnant to the nature of the document.

(2.) Mr. Sitarama Rao's contention on behalf of the appellant is that though the lease is called "Kayamgeni Chit," yet the body of the document shows that it was not intended by the lessor that the lease should be permanent. No doubt the document is headed "Kayamgeni Chit" and begins with the words "Kayamgeni Chit executed on the 10 Pushuabahula," etc., and the counterpart is similar in terms and in the body of the document there is a recital that the lessee is to enjoy from generation to generation. But in the end of the document there is a clause " When we require the property you should take half the value of the improvements for the trees planted by us and full value for the plants planted by you out of the value fixed by wise persons for the improvements and surrender the property to us." Does this clause give the landlord the right to terminate the lease?

(3.) For the respondent, Mr. Venkatachalla Aiyar who appears for Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar contends that the document should be construed as containing the terms of a permanent lease. He relies upon the use of the term "Kayamgeni Chit " and also upon the clause that the lessee was to enjoy the land from generation to generation and upon the fact that the rent is a fixed rent. No doubt in interpreting the document, in the absence of clear words to the contrary, these things would be of great value, namely, the nature of the terms used for the description of the document, the clause with regard to the enjoyment of the property from generation to generation and the rent being a fixed rent. But in a lease of this kind the Court has to see what is the contract entered into by the lessor with the lessee. It is open to the lessee to surrender the land leased to him and it is also open to the lessor to contract with the lessee that the land should be available for him whenever he requires it. The mere use of the word " Kayamgeni Chit " would not take away the force of the recital in the document that the lessee should surrender the land whenever required by the landlord. In construing a document of this kind the whole of the document should be taken into consideration. If there are clear words in the body of the document that the landlord was not to enter upon the land at any time, then the clause in question would be considered repugnant to the general tenor of the document. But so far as I can see there is nothing in the body of the document itself to show that the landlord contracted with the lessee that the lessee should have a perpetual or a permanent lease without the right of re-entry on the part of the landlord.