K RANGANATHAM CHETTY Vs. KOPPULU KANAKARATNAMMAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for specific performance of an agreement, dated the 12 August, 1943, to grant a lease of premises No. 1/90, Godown Street, Madras, for a period of 26 months at a monthly rental of Rs. 85. There was also a claim for damages which were alleged to amount to Rs. 10,000. The learned Judge dismissed the suit, and this is the plaintiff's appeal against the learned Judge's decision.

(2.) It is necessary to refer to a few facts, although our task has been greatly lightened by Mr. Narasimha Aiyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, who has quite properly drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of law and has greatly shortened the time of disposal of this appeal.

(3.) The first defendant is the owner of the premises. By exchange of letters between them, each dated the 12 August, 1943, the first defendant agreed to lease to the plaintiff the premises in suit for a period of 26 months as soon as the second defendant, who was then the occupier, vacated the premises and handed over the keys. The plaintiff paid Rs. 500 as an advance towards the rent. A week later, the first defendant purported to give the second defendant one month's notice to terminate what was alleged to be a monthly tenancy of the premises. The reply, written on behalf of the second defendant to the notice to quit, asserted that the premises were occupied under a lease for three years, commencing in February, 1942, and not expiring until February, 1945, about 18 months thence forward. In December, the first and second defendants apparently got together and made an agreement, the terms of which are set out in a letter, dated the 15th December, 1943, written by the second defendant to the first defendant. That letter states that the second defendant was a tenant of the premises in suit for a period of eleven months at a rental of Rs. 80 monthly, terminating on the 15th November, 1944. There was a term that the second defendant should not sub-let the premises. About April, 1944, the second defendant sold his business to the third defendant and let him into occupation. A meeting took place, according to the correspondence, about that time, by which the rent of the premises pursuant to the agreement set out in the letter of the 15 December, 1943, was paid by the third defendant up to the termination of that agreement and was accepted by the first defendant. One matter requires reference; these premises were subject to the Control Orders which were in force, and prevented any landlord recovering possession, save upon the terms set out in the Control Orders, which meant that as long as a tenant complied with the ordinary terms of his tenancy he could not be disturbed from occupation, however much the landlord might desire possession.