MURUGAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. RANGASAMI NAICKEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to agree with the District Judge that because the lease-deed "prescribes no time", therefore, it should be regarded as a permanent lease. The fact that the lessee and his assigns have been allowed to continue to occupy the lease site for 60 years cannot create a permanent lease right and cannot have any legal bearing on the construction of exhibit Z See Sivatha Muthu Asari v. Revd. J.N.H. Mesguita 19 Ind. Cas. 824 : 24 M.L.J. 642 : (1913) M. W N. 480 : 13 M.L.T. 513. We are clear that Exhibit Z can only be treated as creating a monthly tenancy. (See Section 100 of Act IV 1882).

(2.) On the question of the right to compensation and the amount thereof the lower Appellate Court has not given findings and we request it to submit findings on the following issues: 1. Whether the trustees of the temple by their conduct afforded hope and encouragement to the defendant and hi predecessors-in-title that the latter would not be ejected without a reasonable return for the expenditure incurred by them in building upon the plaint site. See Dattatraya Rayaji Pai v. Shridhar Narayan Pai (1892) P.J. 348 : 17 B. 736. 2. If the above issue is found in the affirmative, what sum is the defendant entitled to as compensation before he could be ejected.

(3.) Both sides will be at liberty to adduce further evidence. The time for submission of findings is three months from the date of receipt of records. Ten days will be allowed for filing objections.