- (1.)This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a suit brought by a Mittadar to eject the defendants, who claim to hold under a permanent lease.
(2.)Two questions have been argued before us: we whether the defendants hold on a permanent tenure; and (2) whether, if they did so hold, they have forfeited their tenure by renouncing their character as lessees by setting up a title in a third person, within the meaning of Section 111 (g~, of the Transfer of Properly Act.
(3.)As regards the first point we have been referred to the cases reported as Rajaram v. Narasinga 15 M. 199 : 5 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 400, Fonlkes v. Muthusami Goundan 21 M. 503 : 8 M.L.J. 207 : 7 Ind. Deo. (n.s.) 712, Venkataramanna v. Venkatapathi Nayani Varu 29 Ind. Cas. 188 : 28 M.L.J. 510 : 17 M.L.T. 269 : (1915) M.W.N. 313 and Rama Iyengar v. Anga Guruewami Chetti 46 Ind. Cas. 62 : 8 L.W. 109 : 35 M.L.J. 129, in which the meaning of the words "Saswatham" and "kayam" occurring in leases have been construed. We do not think it necessary again to discuss the meaning of these terms or the correctness of the decision in Rajaram v. Narasinga 15 M. 199 : 5 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 400, because it has been abundantly established in later cases that, even if literal effect is not to be given to these words so as to involve as a necessary inference a permanent tenancy, yet the surrounding circumstances may be looked at and a permanent tenancy may be inferred from the "use" of these words. In the present case, we find that the lease in the suit was a renewal of previous documents, and that previously to the execution of this instrument the lessees had been held to hold on a permanent tenure in the suit of 1819. That consideration, in our opinion, is sufficient to show that it was intended to confer a permanent tenure in favour of the lessees by virtue of Exhibit J in this case. Therefore, on that ground, we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge.