VISALAKSHY Vs. VIJAYARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was disposed of earlier as per order dated 30. 9. 1997. The respondents thereupon took up the matter before the Supreme court and it was decided by the Supreme Court in SLP. No. 22885 of 1997 that a review petition cannot be disposed of on a provisional basis as done by this court and that it should be heard and disposed of afresh in accordance with law. After the remand, both sides were heard.

(2.) THE review petitioner is the land lord. As against the order passed in O. A. 938 of 1975 by the Land Tribunal, Talikulam, Thrissur allowing the application for assignment made by the respondents' predecessor with regard to 1. 04 acres in Survey No. 383/2 of Edamattom Village the petitioner filed A. A. No. 1100 of 1976 before the Appellate Authority, Thrissur and the matter was remitted back. Subsequently, the successor Land Tribunal namely; the Land tribunal, Kodungallur after re-numbering the proceedings as O. A. No. 132 of 1977 dismissed the petition. THE respondents then took up the matter in appeal by way of A. A. 174 of 1982 before the Appellate Authority, Thrissur and that was also dismissed. That order was challenged before this court in C. R. P. No. 1343 of 1987. This court set aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellate Authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate authority. THE successor appellate authority re-numbered the proceedings as A. A. No. 99 of 1988, heard the parties afresh and upheld the claim of tenancy raised under S. 6-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was the turn of the petitioner now to challenge the order before this court. CRP no. 131of 1990 filed by him was dismissed on 20. 12. 1990. It was challenging the said order that R. P. No. 54 of 1990 was filed. THE contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by this court dismissing the revision petition is on a mistaken assumption. It is pointed out that since the tenant had claimed the benefit of tenancy under S. 2 (57) of the Act, it is not open to him to make a fresh claim under S. 6-B of the Act and that the Appellate Authority, therefore, erred in upholding the said claim.

(3.) RELIANCE was placed on the decisions in M. T. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another (1989 (2) K. L. J. 77), Kaliyannan v. Narasimha Iyer (1974 K. L. T. 286) and Kunhi v. Ammu Amma (1990 (2) KLT SN 68 (page 50) to contend that after filing any claim for fixity, it is not open to the tenant to turn round and make a different claim at a later stage and that if such contradictory versions are raised, the court has to reject the contention. On a perusal of the said decisions, it is seen that the facts involved were different. Kaliyannan v. Narasimha Iyer (1914 KLT 286) was a case where the claim originally made was on the basis of an alleged oral lease. After it was found untenable, he came forward with a new case based on a registered deed. It was in these circumstances that it was found that such contradictory versions cannot be admitted.