B. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. P. BHAVADASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in a suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession, are the appellants. Plaintiffs sued on the allegation that the first defendant - a partnership firm was permitted to use the plaint schedule property consisting of a building and 56 cents of land for the purpose of conducting timber business and that the said transaction is only a licence which was being renewed from time to time. On the premise that the building and 16.5 cents on which it stands, was governed by the provisions of the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the plaintiffs filed Ext. A7 rent control petition seeking eviction. Ext. A8 was the objection filed by the first defendant firm. The Rent Control Court dismissed that eviction petition by holding that the transaction was not a building lease as contended in those proceedings and the lease was for the entire extent of 56 cents with building standing thereon and therefore, it is not a building lease for the purpose of Act 2 of 1965. This was affirmed by the appellate authority. That led to a revision before this court at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit from which this appeal arises. This court affirmed the decision of the appellate authority and the rent control court that the transaction was not a building lease. Nevertheless, this court further dilated on the question whether the transaction between the parties was a lease or licence and held as per Ext. A9 that the transaction was a licence.

(2.) On the face of the aforesaid finding of this court, the plaintiffs sued for mandatory injunction to direct the first defendant and the partners of the firm to vacate the premises which was covered by the licence. In the alternative, it was contended that if for some reason, the court were to conclude that the transaction is a lease, the plaintiffs may be granted a decree for recovery of possession since any such subsisting lease should also stand terminated.

(3.) In defence, the plea was that the transaction is not a licence, but a lease of land and that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The court below, after hearing PW 1 and DW 1 and also taking on record the documents produced, held that the transaction between the parties is essentially a licence and even if it were a lease, the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This is under challenge.