JUDGMENT This Second Appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent due on a lease of properties for fasli 1362 and of the price of seed and thasucooly advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff obtained’ a decree in respect of the price of seed and thasucooly. In other respects the suit was dismissed and the plaintiff's appeal was unsuccessful. The ground on which both the Courts below declined to decree the rent due under the lease agreement was that there was a cyclone as a result of which the defendant entirely lost the crops. The further ground relied on by them was that it was common for land-owners to give remissions despite a term in the lease agreement that rent should be paid unconditionally. The lower appellate Court also considered that the claim relating to unconditional payment was included in the lease more or less in terrorem and was never intended to be strictly acted upon. The aggrieved plaintiff has come to this Court in Second Appeal. It is now well-settled, so far as this Court is concerned by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Kampahareswaraswami Devasthanam v. Appasami Padayachi A.S. No. 1172 of 1953, that in the case of an unconditional lease it is not within the power of the Court on equitable grounds to relieve the lessee from his obligation under the contract to pay the entire rent. It is not disputed that in this case the lease agreement provided for payment of rent as stipulated irrespective of rajeegam or deiveegam. That being the case the fact that as a result of cyclone the defendant entirely lost his crops, cannot relieve him against his liability under the contract. Nor can I find any justification for the view of the lower appellate Court that, notwithstanding such conditional terms, the lessors do grant remissions on account of unforeseen damage to crops. It is always open to a lessor to remit a portion of the rent if he so desires. But the Courts can only look to the terms of the contract and enforce the same. They cannot depart from the terms which the parties have agreed to. It is always open to a lessor to remit a portion of the rent if he so desires. But the Courts can only look to the terms of the contract and enforce the same. They cannot depart from the terms which the parties have agreed to. Equally there appears to be no basis for the view of the lower appellate Court that the term for payment of rent unconditionally was only meant in terrorem and not intended to be acted upon. Sri K. S. Naidu, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in Appeal No. 1172 of 1953 the lease was for a term of years unlike in the present case where the lease was only for the one fasli. According to the learned counsel, the principle that an unconditional lease will have to be enforced in accordance with the terms was not applicable to a lease for a year only. I am unable to agree. Although in that appeal the lease was for a term of years, the ground of the decision is to be found in the following sentences “We cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that there is power in the Court on some kind of equitable principle to relieve respondents from the obligations under Exhibit A-3.” That being the case, the fact that the lease was only for one year can make no difference to the position that the Court has no power to depart from the terms of the contract. The learned counsel for the respondent next urged that the plaintiff's claim for interest on the arrears of rent for fasli 1362 could not in any case be granted. Before the suit was filed it does not appear that the plaintiff made any demand on the respondent for payment of interest on the arrears. I do not, therefore, consider that the plaintiff should be permitted to recover the interest claimed in the plaint. In the result the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below in so far as they related to the arrears of interest due for fasli 1362 are set aside. In addition to what has been decreed to the plaintiff, there will be a decree also for the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff for fasli 1362. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below in so far as they related to the arrears of interest due for fasli 1362 are set aside. In addition to what has been decreed to the plaintiff, there will be a decree also for the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff for fasli 1362. The plaintiff will be entitled to its costs in the Courts below in respect of the arrears of rent decreed in this Court. There will be no costs in the Second Appeal. No leave. R.M.-----Appeal allowed.