LAWS(PVC)-1916-4-9

VENA SUBBARAYULU NAIDU Vs. MKSUBBARAYALU NAIDU

Decided On April 05, 1916
VENA SUBBARAYULU NAIDU Appellant
V/S
MKSUBBARAYALU NAIDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In defending a suit for rent, appellant alleged that the rent was not due, because respondent had failed to repair the well on the land and consequently he (appellant) had been unable to raise the garden crops for the cultivation of which the rent had been fixed. The first Court allowed an abatement of rent, but the lower Appellate Court disallowed appellant s contention because under Section 38 of the Estates Land Act he could and should have applied to the Collector for a reduction of rent.

(2.) Patta was accepted by defendant for Fasli 1318 and a muchilika executed; and similar pattas were tendered for Faslis 1319 to 1321 (the suit period) and were not objected to. It must be taken, therefore, that there was a contract between the parties, under which the appellant was bound to pay the rent now claimed. His plea for reduction of rent on the ground of failure of water supply is undoubtedly in the nature of an equitable set-off, for, in effect, it is a claim for damages in respect of the contract to cultivate, for into that contract appellant wishes to import another contract that the landlord was to repair the well which irrigated the land. In the language of Scotland, C.J., in Stephen Clark v. Ruthnavaloo Chetti 2 M.H.C.R. 296, "the right of set-off will be found to exist not only in cases of mutual debts and credits, but also where the cross-demands arise out of one and the same transaction, or are so connected in their nature and circumstances as to make it inequitable that the plaintiff should recover and the defendant be driven to a cross suit." In this case defendant s plea undoubtedly amounts to an equitable set-off and as such is barred under Section 192(e) of the Act.

(3.) In this view it is unnecessary to discuss the larger question of whether, apart from the question of set-off, defendant is precluded by the provisions of the Act from setting up in defence to a suit for rent, a right which he is specifically allowed by the Act to enforce by suit or otherwise.