ELAGAN Vs. NANJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3 defendant, father of the 2nd defendant, and father of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were three brothers. Plaintiff's uncle the 3 defendant took a lease of the suit land in the year 1878. After the lessor's death the 3rd defendant and the 4 defendant took a lease of the same land from the lessor's widow in the year 1897. After the death of the widow, the reversioner who is the 1 defendant collected the rents for some years and then sold his rights as landlord of the suit land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, then determined the tenancy as if it was a tenancy-at-will but the lessees who were his own relations declined to quit. The plaintiff accordingly sued to recover the land together with mesne profits and damages. The suit was decreed to him but without damages by the District Munsif, but this decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs by the District Judge. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's legal representative against the decree of the District Judge dismissing the suit.

(2.) The District Judge held (a) that the later lease Exhibit I, dated 1897, was not merely a tenancy-at-will but one under which the lessees could hold on so long as they paid the rent, (b) that it was a mere confirmation of Exhibit III the granting of which was within the powers of a Hindu widow, and (c) that the lease was forfeited by the lessees on account of nonpayment of rent. He, however, held that in the circumstances of the case the lessees were entitled to be relieved against forfeiture. These various findings of the District Judge have been vigorously attacked here in second appeal.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that Exhibit I is merely a tenancy at-will which the landlord could put an end to at any time he likes, that, if it is construed as anything more than a tenancy-at will, then the taking of it by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 implied a surrender of the old lease by the lessees and the creation of a new permanent lease which it is incompetent for a Hindu widow to grant, that at any rate the lease was forfeited by non-payment of rent and that the District Judge was wrong in relieving against forfeiture in the circumstances of the case. If any of these contentions are upheld in appellant's favour, he is entitled to succeed in second appeal. I will now proceed to deal with each one of these contentions.