VENKITASUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. KRISHNA IYER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IN this Revision Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, learned counsel for the defendant in O. S. 479/62 on the file of the court of the munsiff, Ernakulam, challenges the decree of that court directing his client to put the plaintiffs in the suit in possession of the properties.
(2.) THE suit itself was instituted by the plaintiffs under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. THE material part of S. 9 of the Specific Relief act is as follows: "section 9. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. " and it also provided in the latter part of the section that no appeal shall lie instituted under that section nor shall any review of the order be allowed. I am referring to the last aspect because that is why the defendant-petitioner has come up to this court in revision challenging the decree of the trial court passed under S. 9 of the Act.
The averments in the plaint will show that the defendant-petitioner was the owner of a building in Ernakulam and that the first plaintiff became his tenant in respect of a part of the property from june 1941 at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. Similarly, the second plaintiff became a tenant under the defendant in respect of another portion of the property from march 1942 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -.
According to the plaintiffs, in or about February 1962 the defendant-petitioner represented to them that he wants the plaintiffs to vacate the building temporarily so as to enable him to remodel and repair the building. There is also a statement to the effect that the defendant assured the plaintiffs that immediately after repair and remodelling was over, they will be put back in possession of the premises. Then it is mentioned by the plaintiffs that they also agreed to pay any reasonable enhanced rent that may be found necessary with the nature of modification that may be done by the defendant. The plaintiffs implicitly believed the statements of the defendant and vacated the house for purposes of repair on 16th February 1962.
(3.) LATER on, no doubt in Para. 6, after referring to the fact that the defendant was doing nothing towards effecting any repair, the plaintiffs stated that the various representations were made by defendant only with the ulterior object of making the plaintiffs vacate the house.
Then they refer to the fact that their tenancy rights could not have been terminated under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as amended by Act 29 of 1961 nor could the defendant get possession of the building under the Act. Ultimately the plaintiffs pray for a decree being passed in their favour directing the defendant to surrender possession of the premises mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and also for costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.