- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jitendra Nath Chatterjee v. Mt. Jasoda Sahun
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for house rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month with interest for the period January 1918 to December 1920. Some 11 or 12 years before this suit, the plaintiffs' predecessor had sued the defendants for ejectment; that earlier suit was compromised and, in April 1907, a decree was passed embodying the compromise. Clauses 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the compromise (as recited in the decree) provided, in substance:
- Clause 4: From January 1907 to December 1917 the defendants could occupy the premises paying Rs. 400 per year (payable in four instalments of Rs. 100); plaintiff had no right to eject before December 1917; defendants could vacate earlier on six months' notice.
- Clause 5: If the defendants wanted to occupy the premises after expiry of 1917 without taking a fresh settlement, they would have to pay rent at Rs. 100 per month.
- Clause 7: On giving up the premises the defendants were to restore them to their original condition.
- Clause 8: The plaintiff was to keep the premises in good repair during the 11-year period.
After 1917, the defendants continued in occupation without taking a fresh settlement and held over until the date of the present suit. The defendants' defence was that Clause 5 was a covenant for renewal (i.e., they had a right to renew on the same terms) and that the Rs. 100 per month stipulation was penal; they contended they were entitled to continue paying Rs. 400 per year.
The Subordinate Judge held Clause 5 did not contain a covenant for renewal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit because the defendants had neither executed a fresh kabuliyat nor given notice. The District Judge agreed as to construction (no covenant for renewal and Clause 5 not a penalty) and allowed interest only from 27 December 1920, when the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendants. The matter proceeded on appeal; the counsel identified in the opinion (Mr. Hasan Imam) argued in support of the defendants' renewal/penalty contentions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Clause (5) of the compromise/decree was a covenant for renewal of the lease (i.e., conferred a right of renewal on the defendants) or instead provided an alternative for holding over under specified terms.
- Whether the stipulation in Clause (5) that rent would be Rs. 100 per month if the defendants occupied after 1917 without a fresh settlement was a penal stipulation unenforceable under principles such as Section 74 of the Contract Act or the doctrine against penalties.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' / Appellant's Arguments (as presented by Mr. Hasan Imam)
- Clause (5) should be read as containing a covenant for renewal: the defendants had a right to renew the lease on the same terms if they did not wish to take a fresh settlement.
- The stipulation that rent would be Rs. 100 per month for occupation after 1917 without a fresh settlement was penal in character and intended to force the defendants to take a fresh settlement; therefore, it should not be enforced as an onerous penalty.
- Reliance was placed on the decisions in Guru Prasana Bkattacharji v. Madhusudan Chowdhry; Secretary of State for India v. A.H. Forbes; and Lani Mia v. Mohamed Fasin Mia with respect to renewal principles.
Plaintiffs' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiffs' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Guru Prasana Bkattacharji v. Madhusudan Chowdhry | Interpretation of words indicating a second settlement (dosra bundbast) and the consequence that where renewal is covenanted but terms are not specified the new lease is for same period and on same essential terms. | The court found this case did not fully meet the present fact situation: it related to interpretation of a term in Bengali and to implied terms on renewal, but did not control the present compromise clauses read together. |
| Secretary of State for India v. A.H. Forbes | Held that a clause stating the lessor would have power to resettle the land with the lessee on a fair rent was intended to be a covenant for renewal, allowing the Government only to alter rent on renewal. | The court held this decision likewise did not altogether meet the present case; it did not govern interpretation of the compromise clauses here. |
| Lani Mia v. Mohamed Fasin Mia | Where lease contained covenant that upon expiry tenant would take a fresh settlement and landlord would grant such settlement (i.e., a stipulation concerning a fresh settlement). | The court observed this was not decisive for the present dispute; the compromise as drafted gave alternative options rather than guaranteeing renewal on the same terms. |
| Ganpat Singh v. Jasodhar Singh | Where kabuliyats stated that after expiry, if defendant failed to execute fresh kabuliyat, landlords could realize rent at a specified rate; the stipulation for specified rent was held not to be a penalty. | The court treated this case as almost exactly similar and applied its reasoning: a stipulated rate for holding over without fresh kabuliyat was enforceable and not penal. |
| Mir Abdul Aziz v. Karu | Distinguished case: there penalty was imposed for tenant claiming occupancy rights and holding over; clause held penal and not enforceable. | The court distinguished Mir Abdul Aziz as materially different: that case punished the tenant's action in asserting occupancy rights; it did not govern the present renewal/holding-over clause. |
| John Pierpont Morgan v. Babu Ramjiram | Held that where a lease imposed mesne profits at an unduly high rate on failure to give up land (i.e., where there was an obligation to leave), the Court could alter the rate as being in the nature of a penalty. | The court noted this case concerned a situation with an obligation on the tenant to leave at end of term; it was not analogous because no such obligation to take fresh settlement existed here. |
| Shirekuli Timapa Hegda v. Mahablya | Doctrine that penalties are not applicable to stipulations contained in decrees (doctrine that decrees should not be altered on penalty/equitable grounds once parties have embodied their compromise in an order). | The court relied on this principle to hold that the doctrine of penalties does not apply to stipulations forming part of a decree; Clause (5) being part of the decree cannot be attacked as a penalty in the ordinary way. |
| Balprasad v. Dharnidhar Sikharam (quoting West, J.) | Expressed the principle that decrees embody settled justice and cannot be varied on equitable modification grounds; the doctrine of penalties is not applicable to decrees which embody parties' own disposals. | The court cited this authority (via Shirekuli Timapa Hegda) to reinforce that alternative engagements incorporated into decrees must be performed even if severe; therefore defendants cannot successfully invoke doctrine of penalties against a decree term. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in these principal steps (as reflected in the opinion):
- Construction of the compromise/decree clauses as a whole: the court read Clauses 4 and 5 together and concluded the lessee was given three alternatives at the end of the 11-year term — (a) vacate the premises; (b) take a fresh settlement (i.e., negotiate fresh terms); or (c) remain in occupation without a fresh settlement but pay the rent specified in Clause 5 (Rs. 100 per month). The words “fresh settlement” were construed according to their plain English meaning in the decree: a meeting to agree fresh terms.
- Evaluation of renewal argument: the court found Clause 5 did not import a covenant for renewal on the same terms; rather it provided an alternative for holding over at a rent agreed by the parties (a predetermined fair rate that the parties considered appropriate after 11 years).
- Assessment of the penalty contention: the court observed that for a stipulation to be a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act there must be an obligation and a breach. Here there was no obligation on the defendants either to occupy the house or to take a fresh settlement — the provision was permissive and alternative in nature. Therefore the “penalty” doctrine rooted in breach principles did not apply.
- Distinguishing unfavorable precedents: the court examined the cases relied upon by counsel and concluded they did not control the present facts — some dealt with implied renewal terms, some with expressly covenanted renewals, and some with penalties imposed for refusals to vacate where an obligation to leave existed. Those factual matrices differed from the present compromise.
- Analogy to supporting precedent: the court found Ganpat Singh v. Jasodhar Singh closely analogous, where a stipulated rate for holding over without fresh kabuliyat was upheld as not a penalty, and applied the same reasoning here.
- Effect of decree status: critically, the court emphasized that Clause 5 formed part of a decree; citing Shirekuli Timapa Hegda v. Mahablya and Balprasad v. Dharnidhar Sikharam, the court held that the doctrine of penalties is inapplicable to stipulations embodied in decrees — parties who have agreed alternative engagements and incorporated them in a decree must perform them, even if the terms are severe.
- On interest: the court accepted the District Judge's approach of allowing interest only from 27 December 1920 (the date when notice was served). The court gave two reasons: (a) interest should be reckoned from date of notice and (b) because the increase in rent (from Rs. 400 per year to Rs. 100 per month) was substantial, it was fair not to require the defendants to pay interest for the earlier period.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Holding (core ruling): The court dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal with costs. It upheld the reasoning that Clause (5) of the compromise/decree did not create a covenant for renewal and that the stipulated rent for holding over (Rs. 100 per month) was not a penal stipulation that could be struck down. Because Clause (5) formed part of a decree, the doctrine of penalties was not applicable to it.
Implications:
- The plaintiffs' entitlement to rent as determined by the courts below is sustained; the defendants cannot rely on the doctrine of penalties to avoid paying the contractual/ decree-based rate for holding over.
- Interest on the rent claim was allowed only from 27 December 1920 (the date of notice), as found fair by the court given the substantial increase in rent that the decree-terms envisaged.
- No broader alteration of law was made: the court applied existing principles on construction of settlement clauses, on the inapplicability of penalty doctrine to decrees, and on the need to distinguish cases where an obligation to leave exists. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond its application of these established principles to the facts of the case.
Adami, J.:— The plaintiffs in this case sued the defendants for house rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month with interest from January 1918 to December 1920.
2. It appears that some 11 or 12 years previous to the suit the predecessor of the plaintiffs had sued the defendants and sought to eject them from the premises which are within the Municipality of Bhagalpur. The suit was compromised, and in April 1907, a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Clauses 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the compromise included in the decree are to the following effect:—
“(4) That from January 1907, to December 1917 the defendants shall be entitled to occupy the premises mentioned in the plaint and pay rent at four hundred rupees per year (Rs. 400 per year) payable in four instalments of Rs. 100 each from January 1907 to December 1917, and the plaintiff shall have no right to eject the defendants from the premises for that period, namely, before December 1917. The defendants will, however, be at liberty to vacate the said premises at any time within the said period of 11 years on giving six months notice to the plaintiff.
“(5) That if the defendants want to occupy the premises after the expiry of 1917, without taking a fresh settlement, they shall have to pay rent at Rs. 100 per month.
“(7) That when the defendants give up the premises, they shall be bound to restore the premises to the condition in which it was at the time it was first settled with them.
“(8) That the plaintiff shall be bound to keep the premises in good repair during the period of the said 11 years.
3. After 1917, the defendants continued to occupy the premises; they did not take a fresh settlement and held over until the date of the suit. The defence to the suit was that Cl. (5) was a covenant for renewal and the stipulation that the defendants would have to pay Rs. 100 per month, if they wanted to occupy the premises without taking a fresh settlement, was by way of a penalty; they claimed the right to continue paying rent at the rate of Rs. 400 a year.
4. The question in the suit was whether Cl. (5) was a renewal clause and whether the stipulation as to payment of rent at Rs. 100 per month was by way of penalty. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Cl. (5) did not contain a covenant for renewal of the lease, but that afresh lease with fresh terms and rent could be takers at the expiry of the term of the lease. He held that the defendants did not execute any fresh kabuliyat, nor did they give notice to the appellant of their intention of doing it. He decreed the plaintiffs suit.
5. The learned District Judge came to the same opinion; he held that there was no covenant for renewal and that Cl. (5) was not a penalty clause. He allowed interest only from the 27th December, 1920, when a notice was served on the defendants by the plaintiff.
6. Mr. Hasan Imam before us argues that Cl. (5) contains a covenant for renewal and that the stipulation as to payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 100 is penal. He contends that Cl. (5) means that the defendants have the right to a renewal of the lease on the same terms if they do not want to take a fresh settlement, and that the stipulation as to payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 100 is intended only to force them to take a fresh settlement. At least, if his contention is that the defendants have a right to renew the lease, on the same terms if they do not want a fresh settlement, it is difficult to understand what action the penalty would be attached to unless it is a failure to take a fresh settlement. He relies on the cases of Guru Prasana Bkattacharji v. Madhusudan Chowdhry(1); Secretary of State for India v. A.H Forbes(2); and Lani Mia v. Mohamed Fasin Mia(3), with regard to the question of renewal. In my opinion, none of these three decisions altogether meets this case.
7. In the first one the real question at issue was with regard to the meaning of the words dosra bundbast, that is to say, whether they meant a second settlement on the same terms or a different settlement. The words in the lease were: “On the expiry of the term I shall take a “dosra bundbast”; the lease was in Bengali. It was held that, where there is a covenant for renewal, if the option does not state the terms of the renewal, the new lease would be for the same period and on the same terms as the original lease in respect of all the essential conditions thereof except as to the covenant for renewal itself.
8. In the second case the lease provided that after the expiry of the term the lessor would have power to resettle the land with the lessee on a fair rent. It was held that the last clause was intended to be a covenant for renewal and that the Government was entitled only to alter the rent on renewal.
9. In the third case the lease contained a covenant that upon the expiry of the term the tenant would take a fresh settlement and that the landlord would grant him such settlement.
10. None of these cases, as I have said, meets the present case. It is clear from the clauses I have cited that the lessee was given three options, he could either leave the premises at the end of the term, or he could take a fresh settlement, meaning thereby a settlement on fresh terms as to rent, or he could hold on at a rent which was arranged to be at the rate of Rs. 100/- a month.
11. The decree and the compromise were drafted in English and the meaning of a fresh settlement is clear. It meant that the parties would meet and agree to the terms on which the lease was to be renewed. The clauses taken as a whole show that the plaintiffs were indifferent whether the defendants left at the end of the 11 years or stayed on. It was agreed that, if they did want to stay, they must either take a fresh settlement or remain on paying a rent, which the parties evidently agreed would be a fair one after the lapse of 11 years, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.
12. The case is almost exactly similar to the case of Ganpat Singh v. Jasodhar Singh(4). There the kabuliyats stated that after the expiry of a term of 6 years the defendant would cease to have any right to retain possession, but, in case he failed to execute a fresh kabuliyat, the landlords should have power to realize rent at Rs. 5/- per bigha on the strength of the said kabuliyats, and the defendant would have no objection to that. It was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to demand rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- a bigha and the stipulation of payment of rent at that rate was not a penalty by reason of the non-execution of fresh kabuliyats. It has been sought to compare this last cited case with the case of Mir Abdul Aziz v. Karu(5), but the latter is quite a different case. It was there provided that the tenant should give up the land on the expiry of the term and, if upon the expiry of the term he claimed a right of occupancy or caused a claim to be put up by any other person, he would be liable whilst holding over to pay a higher rent. It was held that the clause as regards the payment of higher rent being in the nature of a penalty was not enforceable. The penalty in that case was for the tenant's action in setting up a right of occupancy and claiming to be not liable to ejectment. That case too does not affect the question of renewal but only that of penalty. In my mind it is quite clear that what the parties intended was that, if the defendants wanted to occupy the premises after the expiry of 1917, they could either take a fresh settlement or remain in occupation without a fresh settlement on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month, which the parties at that time thought would be a fair rent after the lapse of 11 years.
13. With regard to the question of penalty, it is hard to understand how the clause as it is framed could be construed to intend a penalty. There was no obligation on the defendants to occupy the house or to take a fresh settlement and a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act will only follow some breach or obligation. There is no obligation in the present case. Mr. Hasan Imam has relied on the case of John Pierpont Morgan v. Babu Ramjiram(6) where it was held that, where a lease contains a stipulation that the lessee shall pay mesne profits at an unduly high rate on failure to give up the land, which formed the subject matter of the lease, on the expiry of the term, the Court has power to alter the rate agreed upon as being in the nature of a penalty; but in that case there was an obligation for the tenant to leave at the end of the term and the penalty was to cover any action of the raiyat in refusing to give up the land on the ground that he had an occupancy right.
14. However, in the present case it has to be remembered that Cl. (5) forms part of a decree, and I need only refer to the case Shirekuli Timapa Hegda v. Mahablya(7). It was there held that the doctrine of penalties was not applicable] to stipulations contained in decrees. In] that judgment Birdwood, J. cited the following remarks made by West, J. in the case of Balprasad v. Dharnidhar Sikharam(8). “The principles which govern the enforcement of contracts and their modification, when justice requires it, do not apply to decrees which, as they are framed, embody and express such justice as the Court is capable of conceiving and administering. The admission of a power to vary the requirements of a decree once passed would introduce uncertainty and confusion. No one's rights would, at any stage, be so established that they could be depended on, and the Courts would be overwhelmed with applications for the modification on equitable principles, of orders made on a full consideration of the cases which they were meant to terminate. It is obvious that such a state of things would not be far removed from a judicial chaos; and as ordinary decrees are thus unchangeable, so we think are those in which, through a special provision for the convenience of parties, their own disposals of their disputes are embodied. The doctrine of penalties is not applicable to such a class of cases; and those who, with their eyes open, have made alternative engagements and invited alternative orders of the Court, must, if they fail to perform the one, perform the other, however greatly severe its terms may be.”
15. The defendants, therefore, cannot put forward the doctrine of penalties in the present case considering that they held their premises under the terms of the compromise embodied in the decree.
16. With regard to the question of interest which forms the subject of the cross-appeal, in my opinion the learned District Judge was quite correct in disallowing interest previous to the 27th December, 1920, Dot because the interest should be reckoned only from the date of notice but because the increase in the rent is so large that I think it is only fair that the defendants should not be called upon to pay more by way of interest. I would dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal with costs.
17. Sen, J.:— I agree.
18. Appeal dismissed.
Alert