P T CHAMI Vs. AANA PATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the learned Judge found that the landlord tendered by paying into Court the whole value of the improvements effected by the tenant. It is said that the Judge did not determine what was the exact sum due. What he did say was that "the correct amount was deposited because Rs. 100 was deposited" and, of course, in a matter of this kind the value of the improvements cannot be accurately estimated. All that he can say is whether the sum tendered was substantially reasonable compensation for the improvements; and he has found it was, and, therefore, it was a perfectly good tender. I confess to a good deal of difficulty in seeing how the landlord was entitled to take the procedure of paying into Court. But that is not complained of here and, therefore, no difficulty arises on that score.

(2.) That being so, the landlord then says that the tenant has got to pay him mesne profits for two years or for such period as he remained in possession after the principal mortgage-money and the interest had been paid off and after there had been this tender of the amount due for improvements. The Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, Section 5, says: "Every tenant shall, on ejectment, be entitled to compensation for improvements which have been made by him... and every tenant to whom compensation is so due shall, notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy or the payment or tender of the mortgage-money, be entitled to remain in possession until ejectment in execution of a decree or order of Court." The appellant says that this entitles him to turn a deaf ear to any tender or offer of the compensation money and squat upon the land rigidly until a suit is actually brought. I think that is a wholly unreasonable construction of the Act and would permit wholly unreasonable conduct on the part of the tenant. I think that when the landlord has tendered that which the Court has subsequently found to be the true amount due and owing in respect of the improvements, if the tenant chooses to hold over after that date, he can do so only at his peril and on condition of paying the mesne profits on the land, if the amount tendered is found to be adequate.

(3.) I desire to express no opinion as to whether the compensation under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act can be treated, in circumstances like the present, all being part of the mortgage-money within the Transfer of Property Act. I do not know whether it is or is not, but it is not necessary to decide that point for the purposes of this case, having regard to the fact that no point is taken about payment into Court being a regular means of tendering, The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Seshagiri Aiyar, J.