1. We are of opinion that Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act does not apply to this case. In the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by Section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an Act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. (See the remarks of Holloway J. at page 173 in the case reported at 6 M.H.C.R., 164, Ghockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady.)
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.