Stephen, J - (1.)In this case the plaintiff claims certain reliefs under the following circumstances:
(2.)On the 2 November, 1905, he took from the defendant a lease of a house and premises, 38 Elgin Road, which are admittedly beyond the limits of the local Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The lease was for 15 years from the 15 of September 1905. It contained two provisions, with which we are concerned; the first was an ordinary covenant for re-entry by the landlord in case of non-payment of rent, the other provision gave him a right to enter on the premises on their being vacated by the tenant, and enabled him in that case to re-let the premises, the tenant remaining liable on his covenants, and in particular being liable for any deficiency of the rent on re-letting by the landlord. What occurred was that the rent for the months of April, May a June, fell into arrears, and the landlord obtained a decree in respect of these arrears in the Small Cause Court in August of that year. At about the same time the premises were vacated by the plaintiff on his being committed to jail in consequence of a conviction before the criminal sessions of this Court. The plaintiff's chief contention is that the defendant entered on the premises under the second of the covenants that I have mentioned, and that the lease has not been terminated, but the defendant is a trustee for his benefit in respect of the profits that he has received in respect of these premises and must account to him for any rent he has obtained from the premises exceeding the amount which the plaintiff has undertaken to pay. He also claims damages for stables, which, he says, the defendant has pulled down, and alternatively, if the lease is terminated, a return of Rs. 1,500, which he deposited with the defendant as security for rent.
(3.)On these facts the defendant has taken a preliminary objection that this is a suit for land or immoveable property out-side the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and cannot, therefore, be tried by this Court under the powers conferred by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. To decide this question I must in the first place look to the prayers of the plaint to see what exactly are the reliefs claimed. Of these I need consider only the first four. By the first and second the plaintiff asks for an account of money due to him under the lease, by the third for a declaration that the lease and the rights of the lessee are valid and subsisting, and by the fourth for a declaration that he is entitled to the rents and profits of the premises pending the termination of the lease.