ANAND Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the defendant's occupancy tenure of certain fields has come to an end and that the defendant is not entitled to possession of these fields. There are findings of fact that the tenant left his holding uncultivated and the rent of it unpaid for a period of more than two years before the Tenancy Act of 1920 came into force.

(2.) THE only point which is urged before me is that the malguzar by applying in execution for ejectment of the tenant waived his right of forfeiture. In my opinion there was no right of forfeiture] which the malguzar could waive. Section 35(4), Ten. Act of 1898 states that the tenant in the circumstances I am considering shall be deemed to have surrendered his holding. By this provision the tenant escapes liability for rent after the time at which the surrender is deemed to have taken place. The malguzar cannot at his option treat the tenancy as still subsisting and make the tenant liable for the rent of subsequent years. He can, of course again lease the land to the tanant but it is clear that he has not done so in this case.