VAIDYANATHA IYER Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. -
(1.) IN the suit, which has led to this second appeal, for recovery of arrears of rent from the 2nd Defendant defaulting tenant, the Plaintiff landlord had been refused his costs and some interest. Though the amount involved is not considerable, Plaintiff has taken this appeal presumably because a question of principle is at stake.
(2.) THE rent consisted of some paddy and also cash and rears had accrued for the years 1119 to 1123. The tenant had a case that the rent for 1119 and 1120 had been discharged (Eventually this plea was found against). Even so, she sent the entire rent by M. O. to the Plaintiff, committing for this purpose the kiddy portion into its ropier money value. The Plaintiff refused to accept the M. O. and the 2nd Defendant thereafter deposited the amount into Court along with her writ ten statement. The question arose in these circumstances whether there was a proper tender and on that turned the question of interest and costs with which we are now concerned. The Munsiff held that there was no proper tender. The Judge held contra and hence this appeal by the Plaintiff.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Plaintiff raised twofold contentions, (i) That the tender should have been in kind in the first instance and only on refusal thereof could the remittance by way of M. O. be resorted to and (ii) that the deposit in Court following the tender was not unconditional. It seems to me that he is entitled to succeed on both these aspects.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.