Kommireddi Varaha Narasimham Vs. Chevala Ramasami Nayudu and anr. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/776508 |
| Subject | Tenancy |
| Court | Chennai |
| Decided On | Mar-03-1882 |
| Judge | Innes and ;Muttusami Ayyar, JJ. |
| Reported in | (1882)ILR5Mad136 |
| Appellant | Kommireddi Varaha Narasimham |
| Respondent | Chevala Ramasami Nayudu and anr. |
Excerpt:
rent recovery act, section 7 - exchange of patta and muchalka dispensed with--evidence. - .....in this reference proceeds on the assumption that a patta is necessarily a lease or contains a lease. a patta is not necessarily more than a definite statement, for the protection of both landlord and tenant, of the charges to be paid by the tenant for a particular year or term of years.2. the mere circumstance, therefore, that the parties have arranged without a writing that the one should occupy and the other pay rent is not sufficient to raise the inference that they dispensed with the provision of the law that patta and muchalka should be exchanged.3. the agreement to dispense with patta and muchalka need not be express, but it must appear, as observed by the subordinate judge, that the provision of the law was present to the minds of the contracting parties and that they.....
Judgment:Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
1. The argument of the plaintiff in this reference proceeds on the assumption that a patta is necessarily a lease or contains a lease. A patta is not necessarily more than a definite statement, for the protection of both landlord and tenant, of the charges to be paid by the tenant for a particular year or term of years.
2. The mere circumstance, therefore, that the parties have arranged without a writing that the one should occupy and the other pay rent is not sufficient to raise the inference that they dispensed with the provision of the law that patta and muchalka should be exchanged.
3. The agreement to dispense with patta and muchalka need not be express, but it must appear, as observed by the Subordinate Judge, that the provision of the law was present to the minds of the contracting parties and that they deliberately elected not to act upon it.