T P ABDULLA Vs. SUBHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arose out of two suits, case and counter; one for specific performance and another for vacation of the suit property. One T. P. Abdulla is the appellant in both the appeals who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 64 of 1994 is the suit for specific performance filed by the tenant t. P. Abdulla. This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and such dismissal came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No. 13 of 1995 and hence R. S. A. No. 754 of 1997 came to be filed. The other suit in O. S. No. 65 of 1994 which was filed at an earlier point of time and later renumbered is the suit for possession against the aforesaid T. P. Abdulla filed by one K. T. M. Abdul Sathar on the ground that T. P. Abdulla, the appellant herein was a tenant of the suit property and that suit was decreed by the Trial Court and such decree came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R. A. No. 12 of 1995 and hence R. S. A. No. 753 of 1997 came to be filed.

(2.) THE facts which are common are that the appellant herein was permitted to occupy a small tiled house situated in the property bearing Sy. No. 205 of Mekur Hosakeri Village as a licensee belonging to the plaintiff Abdul Sathar (who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are respondents herein) who had 15 cents of land in the said Sy. No. 205. It was claimed that T. P. Abdulla was staying in that house as a licensee; as the same was required for the plaintiff for the use of his servants, he called upon to vacate the same by a notice dated 6-4-1983, and it was resisted. Hence, the suit for eviction was filed.

(3.) THE defendant Abdulla claimed that the plaintiff Abdul Sathar was not the absolute owner of the land in Sy. No. 205 and he further claimed that the property originally belonged to one K. K. Mohammed and after his death his legal representatives have become the owners. He denied that he was permitted to occupy the suit house as a licensee and contended that K. K. Mohammed inducted him in the suit house as a tenant in the year 1963; at that time there was only katcha hut which was later demolished and new thatched house was constructed by him in the year 1965 and he was paying a ground rent of Rs. 5/- per month to K. K. Mohammed from 15-4-1965 and subsequently on 10-11-1978, K. K. Mohammed executed an agreement of sale of the land for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and received the entire consideration amount and in terms of the agreement, sale deed has to be executed after 5 years from the date of the agreement and further the defendant was permitted to make improvements on the property. Therefore, in terms of the agreement of sale he filed O. S. No. 65 of 1994 a suit for specific performance. Both the suits were clubbed together and tried.