Arunachala Naicker vs Ghulam Mahmood Saheb

Horwill, J.—On 4-8-1917 the parties entered into a contract, EX. P. 1 whereby the appellant took on lease a small plot of laud from the

uncle of the respondent, for two years on a rent of Rs. 2 a month. The land is said to have been lying waste at that time and the appellant desired

to cultivate a garden there. One of the material terms of the lease was:

Besides this, if you, after the expiry of the said stipulated period, send me a notice giving one month''s time I shall vacate the said land and deliver

to you possession thereof.

After the expiry of the lease, the appellant continued in possession; but from time to time the lessee seems to have extended the area of cultivation.

After the death of the lessor in 1932, the legal representatives of the lessor, some time in 1936, thought that in view of the extended area then

under cultivation, the lessee should pay an increased rent. This the lessee was willing to do. At first he paid Rs. 36 per annum, later RS. 48, and

eventually, as time went on Rs. 100 which was the rent in force at the time when the suit was brought. From 4-7-1939 onwards, notices were sent

to the lessee by the legal representatives of the original lessor terminating the lease. Replies were seal by the lessee that he was unwilling to quit the

land and so this suit was filed in 1915.

The suit was resisted on two grounds: the first was that u/s 106, T. P. Act, the lessee was entitled to six months'' notice, since the land bad been

leased for agricultural purposes, and the second was that the period of notice should expire with the year of the tenancy. Both these points were

found against the defendant fey the trial Court. The appeal of the lessee to this Court was dismissed by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. This Letters

Patent Appeal has thereupon been filed by the lessee.

A contract to the contrary within the meaning of the words in Section 106, T. P. Act, was certainly entered into by the parties by Ex. P. 1. It is

argued by Mr. C. R. Krishna Rao for the appellant that Section 106 requires not only a contract to the contrary with regard to the period of

notice, but also with regard to the expiry of the notice. It seems to us that when there is a contract governing the question of notice, we must read

that contract in a reasonable way to ascertain what the parties intended by way of notice and not try to read into the contract some term that would

have to be implied only if there were no contract. It seems to us reasonable to conclude from the passage set out in the opening para that not

merely did the parties intend that the period of notice should be one month, but also that the one month''s notice should be given at any time.

A further question argued is, whether on the pleadings and the evidence, it would appear that the lessee was holding over from month to month

or whether, as contended by Mr. Krishna tao for the lessee, that from time to time fresh contracts were entered into between the legal

representatives of the original lessor and the lessee. It is contended that all the evidence points to the conclusion that the parties had no intention of

regulating their new relationships by the terms of the original lease; but that they entered into oral agreements from time to time in which the only

term was the rent to be paid for the extent of the land then cultivated. If so, then the provisions of Section 106, T. P. Act, would supply other

implied terms. As a part of this question, we have been invited to consider the question whether the parcels of land brought under cultivation from

time to time were accessions within the meaning of Section 108, T. P. Act. If so, then the question before us would be a fairly simple one; because

the terms of the lease would govern in entirety the relationship between the parties up to the date of suit. It is argued that the land brought under

cultivation from time to time could not be regarded as a mere accession, leading to the inference that the parties were to be governed by the

original contract; for, it is clear that from time to time, the parties did enter into fresh relationships and agreed that the rent should be increased as

the area brought under cultivation by the lessee increased.

There is a great deal to be said for the appellant''s contention that fresh contracts were entered into from time to time; but we do not think that

the position of the lessee would thereby become any stronger. The pleadings and the correspondence between the parties lead to the conclusion

that the only discussion entered into between the parties from time to time was with regard to the amount of rent to be paid and that otherwise they

intended that the legal relationship should be governed by the terms of the original contract. It is true that what was originally a monthly rental

became in time a yearly rent ; but as the learned trial Judge pointed out, that may have been merely a matter of convenience. The earliest of the

new rents was Rs. 36 a year, obviously calculated on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 instead of the original Rs. 2. The next increase of rent was, we

understand, to Rs. 48 i.e., Rs. 4 a month. It is true that the present rent is Rs. 100 a year; but during the course of the many years up to the time of

the filing of the suit in 1945, the parties had become accustomed to thinking in terms of an annual rent rather than a monthly rent, There does not

seem to have ever been any agreement as to the extent to be cultivated. The land around the cultivated area was waste. The lessee was allowed to

extend his cultivation according to his own pleasure and at his own convenience, the rent being fixed from time to time with regard to the actual

extent then cultivated. If, except, as to rent, the parties intended to be governed by the original contract, then it would follow that only one month''s

notice was necessary and that the lessor could give that month''s notice at any time he chose.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

The case having been set down for being mentioned this day, the Court made the following

ORDER

A request has been made on behalf of the defendant that since he is now an elderly man of 62 years, very much attached to the land on which he

has spent much thought and energy during the past 33 years, he should be allowed at least one year to accustom himself to the idea of leaving the

land. The plaintiff is willing to allow him to continue in possession foe a year from this date, provided that from 1-3-1950 he pays mesne profits at

the rate of Rs. 250 per annum from that date until he quits the land. He will of course have to pay the arrears of mesne profits at the old rate of Rs.

100 per annum upto 1-3-1950.