KIZHAKKE KURUVATTERI SANKARAN NAMBIAR Vs. THIRUMANGALATHMEETHAL T M THAMBAYT PILLA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KLZHAKKE KURUVATTERI SANKARAN NAMBIAR
THIRUMANGALATHMEETHAL T.M. THAMBAYL PILLA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Against the judgment in A.S. No. 21/1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 46/1994 of the Munsiff Court, Perambra, the plaintiffs filed this appeal. The suit is filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule shop room originally belonged to plaintiffs father Kunhiraman Adiyodi. He died in the year 1992. On his death, his right in the property devolved upon the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. The property was given on rent by the father of the plaintiffs to be defendant in the year 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. The defendant paid rent only up to the month of September, 1992. Subsequently the defendant did not pay the rent. The plaintiffs have sent a notice to the defendant terminating the lease and asking the defendant to give vacant possession of the shop room to the plaintiffs. The defendant sent a reply through a lawyer raising false and frivolous contentions. So the suit is for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule shop room and also for recovery of arrears of rent.
(2.) The defendant filed a written statement contending that the tenancy was not legally terminated. Notice sent by the plaintiffs is not proper and valid. The allegation that the building was taken on rent in 1989 for a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- is not correct. The defendant obtained the shop room on lease in 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The shop room was repaired in 1989. For doing the repair work, the plaintiffs father had accepted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant. At the time of paying the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the agreement was that the defendant can set off the amount against future rent till the entire amount paid is wiped off. The defendant has also spent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for electrifying the building. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to get arrears of rent as claimed in the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. Al and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. The Court below after trial decreed the suit, against which the defendant filed the appeal. The first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.