Open iDraf
K R Manicka Mudaliar v. S Tchinnappa Mudaliyar And Eleven Others

K R Manicka Mudaliar
v.
S Tchinnappa Mudaliyar And Eleven Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No. | 28-07-1912

[1] We find ourselves unable to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge on the facts. We think the plaintiff is bound by the lease evidenced by Exhibit G. By that document the lessees are to hold for such time as they require, or wish, and it is argued that the contract is thus expressed to be a tenancy at the will of the lessee and so by implication of law a tenancy at the will of the lessor also. This contention is supported by reference to "Coke on Littleton," page 55(a), and is in accordance with the law of England as laid down in 18 "Halsbury," page 434.

[2] We agree that the lease is expressed as creating a tenancy at the will of the lessees and We have not been shown sufficient reasons for refusing to adopt the English law on the point. We think therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy, and he has done so.

[3] The District Judge s decision must be modified and the plaintiff must have a decree for recovery of possession of the market in addition to the decree for rent given by the District Judge, for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 18 a month till delivery of possession from date of plaint.

[4] Each party will bear his own costs throughout.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -------

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MILLER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUR RAHIM

Eq Citation

(1913) ILR 36 MAD 557

LQ/MadHC/1912/300

HeadNote

A. Contract and Specific Relief — Contract of Lease — Lease at will — Termination of — Held, plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy, and he had done so — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 20 R. 12

©2020 - LQ Global Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.