Madras High Court
Narayana Naicka vs Vasudeva Bhatta on 21 October, 1903
JUDGMENT
1. This case is not governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Under the lease in question the lessee had as against the lessor a permanent right to occupy but he was at liberty to quit whenever he might choose to do so. The time fixed for payment of rent is the 24th May or every year with a promise that if rent is not paid within a further period of three months allowed as a period of grace the lease shall stand cancelled. In a similar case S.A. No. 89 of I900 See Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty post. p. 210 where also there was agrace period allowed it was held by this Court that the case was distinguish-able from the reported cases in which relief against forfeiture had been given by the Court for non-payment of rent on the ground that in these cases the lease provided no period of grace.
2. Following that decision we hold that the decree of the District Judge is right.
3. We may add that even under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act the exercise of the discretion to relieve against forfeiture may depend upon the circumstance whether the lease allowed a period of grace or not and in the former case, whether the period of grace is a reasonable period having regard to the nature and terms of the lease.
4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.