CHILUKURI TRIPURA SUNDARAMMA Vs. CHILUKURI VENKATESWARLU ALIAS RAMACHANDRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali wherein the question for consideration is whether the forfeiture clauses contained in the two lease deeds Exs. P -4 and P -5 executed by the respondents in each of these appeals to the appellant should be given effect to or not. Exs. P -4 and P -5 are both registered permanent leases relating to properties leased out to the respective respondents in each of the second appeals and in each of them the condition regarding the payment of rent is that the lessees were to remain in occupation of the property as permanent lessees on payment of a rent of ten bags of paddy per acre payable at the end of January each year. In default of payment of rent, the lessor is entitled to recover the same with a charge over the crop at an extra rate of four annas per bag over the prevailing rates. There was also a further clause that a period of grace from the end of January to the 16th of March every year is allowed for the payment of the rent at the rate mentioned above. In case of default of payment even by that date, it was provided that the permanent leases would stand forfeited and the lessees would be liable to be ejected. Both the lower Courts have found that the respondents are entitled to be relieved of the clause regarding forfeiture as it was a penal one, on condition that the arrears of rent were deposited in Court within the time allowed by the trial Court which gave an opportunity to the respondents to pay the rents claimed in the suit and the same has been complied with.

(2.) THE argument of Mr. P. Somasundaram for the appellant is that when a permanent lease provides a stipulated period for the payment of rent after which some days of grace are allowed, and there is a further clause of forfeiture of the tenancy in case the rent is not paid even within the period of grace allowed, the Courts have no power to relieve against forfeiture, because the more allowance of days of grace amounts to something like a relief and therefore there cannot be further relief against forfeiture. Even though prior to 1912, there had been a line of cases laying down that the Court has no power to relieve against forfeiture in such cases, subsequently the tide has turned in the opposite direction and the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show to me any case after 1912 which took the same view that was in vogue previously.

(3.) AS I have already stated, a different line of thought is discernible from the decision in Appayya Shetty v. Mahammade Beari, (1915) 29 M.L.J. 381 :, I.L.R. 39 Mad. 834. In that case Seshagiri Aiyar and Napier, JJ., after an exhaustive consideration of the English and Indian cases and referring to the line of cases discussed by me above, came to the conclusion that Courts in India have power to relieve against forfeiture for non -payment of rent even in cases where a period of grace is allowed for payment by the lease deed and this rule applies equally to a lease for agricultural purposes. Seshagiri Aiyar, J, at page 838, observes as follows: