S.A. No. 511 of 1988. Case: Veeriah Vs Mohammed Kunju Koya. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 511 of 1988 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, Adv. and For Respondents: S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer, V. Giri and V. Satheesh, Advs. |
| Judges | K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. |
| Issue | Transfer of Property Act - Section 111; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961; English Rent Act; Rent Control and Tenancy Act |
| Citation | 1991(5) CivilCC (KERALA), 1991 (2) KLJ 96 |
| Judgement Date | June 14, 1991 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Balakrishnan, J.
1. Plaintiff in O.S. 817/84 on the file of the Principal Munsiffs Court, Alleppey is the Appellant in the second appeal. Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain the first Defendant from executing the order of the Rent Controller passed in R.C.P. 78/77. The suit was dismissed by the trial court which was later confirmed in appeal.
2. The facts in brief are as follows. The predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff let out the plaint schedule building to the first Defendant on 6-10-70 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- as per Ext. A3 rent deed. The tenancy was for a period of 5 months. The first Defendant sublet the plaint schedule building to the 2nd Defendant/who, in turn, sublet the building to the 3rd Defendant. Appellant filed R.C.P. 11/84 for eviction of the tenants. Prior to this Defendants 1 and 2 had filed R.C.P. 78/77 to evict the 3rd Defendant from the paint schedule building. R.C.P. 78/77 was allowed and the 3rd Defendant was directed to surrender possession of the building. During the pendency of R.C.P. 11/84 that is. R.C.P. filed by the Plaintiff, the 3rd Defendant, who was in possession of the building surrendered possession of the same to the Plaintiff on 6-11-84. Thereupon the Plaintiff filed a memo before the Rent Controller stating that R.C.P. 11/84 is not pressed and accordingly R.C.P. 11/84 was dismissed. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 1 and 2 are trying to execute the order they obtained in R.C.P. 78/77 by dispossessing the Plaintiff, who got possession of the building from the 3rd Defendant.
3. Both the courts have found that there was no surrender of the building by the 3rd Defendant and that the building was in the possession of the 3rd Defendant and the alleged surrender is not true.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the finding is erroneous since it is solely based on the common report, which says that some of the attacks belonging to the 3rd Defendant are still in the plaint schedule building. According to the Plaintiff-Appellant, the possession of the building was obtained by him as early as on 6-11-84 and the articles, if any, of the 3rd Defendant found in the building are kept with the permission of the Plaintiff. In view of the definite contention of the 3rd Defendant that he had surrendered the building to the Plaintiff, I do not think that the courts below were justified in holding that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the building. The evidence on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial