K NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. AKUNHAN MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision in second appeal of Shahabuddin, J. The subject-matter is four items of landed property to which the Malabar Tenancy Act (hereinafter called " the Act ") applies. The property had been leased by the jenmi to the Peralikunnath tarwad ; at the end of the term of the lease (whenever it may have been), the lands were thereupon held upon a tenancy from year to year ; on May 15, 1912, the tarwad sub-leased the property to defendants 2 to 5, who assigned their interest to the first defendant, who, in turn, sub-let item 4 of the four items of property to defendants 6 to 12; the tarwad fell into arrear with the rent due to the jenmi, who assigned those arrears to the plaintiff; he obtained a decree for the amount of those arrears and, in execution of his decree the rights of Peralikunnath tarwad were sold and purchased. by the plaintiff; whereupon, in effect, he stood in the shoes of the tarwad. In the suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Walluvanad, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed from defendants 1 to 12 possession of the four items of property and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was decreed, possession being directed to be given upon the plaintiff paying some prescribed amounts by way of munpattom and for improvements. An appeal, by the first defendant, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, was dismissed, but the amount payable for improvements by the plaintiff was increased. The second appeal by the first defendant to this Court was dismissed by Shahabuddin, J. No appeal was preferred by defendants 2 to 12. This is an appeal by the first defendant alone.

(2.) It was not suggested that the original lease contained a provision by which the demise became terminated or forfeited upon the lessee sub-letting the property or any part of it or upon rent falling into arrear.

(3.) Prior to instituting the suit, the plaintiff demanded surrender of possession of the property ; the first defendant informed the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to surrender possession if he were paid for munpattom and improvements, which amounts were not paid by the plaintiff. Those two matters are pleaded in the plaint and in the written statement of the first defendant respectively ; in his written statement, the first defendant denies any demand was made upon him for surrender of possession and he alleges that he was given no registered notice by the plaintiff. In his additional written statement, the first defendant, alleges that he is entitled to a permanent right (or fixity of tenure) to the property pursuant to the Act ( Section 10 of which is the relevant provision). The plaint does not allege that, prior to the suit, the tenancy had been duly determined by notice to quit given by the plaintiff. In the trial Court, the suit was treated as if the plaintiff was the lessor and the defendants were the lessees, in the appellate Court and before us, as if the first defendant was the lessee of the plaintiff lessor.