KADAMBAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Vs. ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH JOINT CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY (INCORPORATED IN ENGLAND) BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MRFRANCIS HAMILTON FARMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of these appeals is the right which has been claimed by the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd., to the renewal of a lease of land granted to their predecessor in title in the year 1891 for 48 years. In O.S. No. 38 of 1942, the Society filed a suit for specific performance of a covenant in that lease to renew it. In O.S. No. 72 of 1942 there was a suit by some of the lessors to eject the Society. The learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore has decreed the suit of the company, though not in full. He has held that the company had the right to renew the lease but that the lease could-not be renewed upon the original terms. He has therefore fixed other terms which shall be current for the renewed period of 48 years. As a consequence of this the suit by the lessors to eject the company has been dismissed. It is the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72 of 1942, who are now the? appellants in both these appeals.

(2.) The lease in question has been exhibited as Ex. P-1. It deals with about 133 acres of land which were said to belong in jenm not to the lessors themselves but to the Ponnani Devaswom. The actual lessor was the karnavan of an illom to which this devaswom was attached. The lease was for, 48 years and the rates of rent were duly provided for. In Clause 4 of the lease it was provided that there should be no payment for improvements if either the lessor recovered possession of the property or if the lessee surrendered possession or if he were evicted by the lessor. In paragraph 7 there was the following provision: If, after 48 years of proper conduct and cultivation under this karar, you require this property yourself, you should, on that day, get the same granted under a special separate karar executed to you and conduct yourself in possession thereunder.

(3.) It is this clause which has given rise to the present litigation. It is contended by the lessor that this clause does not confer upon the lessee any right to a renewal and by the lessee that it does confer such a right upon him. It seems to us that the view of the lessee must prevail. There seems no significance at all in the existence of this clause if it does not confer a right of renewal? It is a matter of common knowledge that when any agreement comes to an end it is always open to the parties to negotiate for a renewal of the agreement if they wish. There is no need whatever to insert so obvious a provision in any agreement. - The mere fact that the language of Clause 7 seems to subject the lessee to a kind of obligation to obtain the lease from the lessor does not in any way affect its true meaning in our opinion. We feel that the clause can have no other significance but as an expression of the intention of the parties that 48 years after the lease, comes into operation it will be renewed if the lessee requires a renewal. We accordingly agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that under Clause 7 there was granted to the lessee a right of renewal.