(Penubarti) Gurumurti vs Vemalapati Rangiah

Pandalai, J.—Defendant 2 appeals. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent 1 as tenant under a jeroyati patta for possession of the

land in dispute from the appellant who was alleged to hold the land on a terminable lease from respondent 2, the zamindar. Two questions arose:

(1) whether the appellant''s holding was an ordinary terminable lease or gave him rights of occupancy; and (2) if the former, whether proper notice

to quit had been given. But the Courts have found concurrently against the appellant on both those points. He now appeals and urges that the

decision as to the nature of the holding cannot be supported. On that point nothing was said which induces me to think that the decision of the

lower Courts was not right. The question really was whether the land was raiyat land or home-farm land. A number of documents were produced

on behalf of the respondents to show that the property was what in this particular zamindari is known as Nageri Idwa which means ""home farm.

The appellant had really no evidence contra but on the contrary, being himself the karnam under the zamindar, had taken official part in preparing

the records which showed that the lands were Nageri Idwa and had also attorned to the zamindar, respondent 2, by mesne of undertakings in

which the land was similarly described. On those materials the finding as to the tenure of the property was correct.

It is next urged that the lower Court was not right in awarding mesne profits for three years prior to the suit because notice to quit was given

only on 21st December 1921 about 21 months before the suit. This contention must, I think, prevail. It is answered that the appellant was prior to

the notice a tenant who had promised the zamindar to take a lease on certain terms and to quit when demanded. But the lease not being taken and

the land being agricultural land what that means in the absence of a lease with definite terms as to notice is that the appellant was bound to

surrender the property on a proper demand being made. According to the decisions what is needed to terminate an agricultural lease is not the six

months'' notice prescribed by the Transfer of Property Act but reasonable notice. But such notice is necessary. Therefore until notice was given the

appellant was a tenant on the usual agricultural terms applicable to the property, i.e., that he could be called upon to quit at the end of the

agricultural season on having been given reasonable notice before that time, but cannot be compelled to pay mesne profits on the footing of being

wrongfully in possession. It is stated that the agricultural year in this part of the Presidency begins about Sankranti (January-February) and that

must have been the reason why the notice, Ex. 24, was given in December 1921, so that the appellant may quit after harvesting the then standing

crop. I am therefore of opinion that the award of three years'' mesne profits was wrong. It must be reduced to the period after the notice and

before suit. The figures are on that footing Rs. 165 for the year immediately prior to the suit and Rs. 149-12-0 for the nine months before that year.

The result is that the amount of mesne profits will be reduced to Rupees 314-12-0. The second appeal is otherwise dismissed. The appellant

must pay three-fourths of the costs of this second appeal, one set to be divided between the respondents.