NAGENDRABALA DASSY Vs. AMRITA LALL CHATTOPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the Putnidar. The defendant in Darputnidar Under the terms of the document under which the defendant Darputnidar holds, Rs. 142 was fixed, to use the language of the document as the annual rent. The meaning, therefore, of this description of annual rent is that this money is primarily payable by the Darputnidar to his superior landlord, the Putnidar, But in conformity with a common arrangement entered into, to provide for cases in which the Putni is sold and the Darputnidar s interest thereby is in danger, it was arranged that of the sum, of Rs. 142 payable to the plaintiffs Rs. 112. should be paid by the Darputnidar to the superior landlord and the balance RS. 30 should be paid by the Darputnidar to his landlord, the Putnidar.

(2.) Now, the defendant expressly covenanted to pay this sum, and that sum has not been paid. The effect of the document is that the defendant must pay Rs. 112 to the plaintiff unless the defendant can produce a receipt from the landlord for that amount.

(3.) It was argued that the sum of Rs. 112 was not rent, because it was assigned to the landlord. There is nothing here which establishes the fact that the landlord released the Putnidar from his liability to pay rent. In the result the first ground upon which the appeal is based, fails.