(1.) This appeal deserves only to be dismissed. Pending a suit for partition, the first defendant was alleged to have inducted the appellants here, into occupation of portions of two buildings which are items 1 and 2 of A schedule. Under the final decree for partition, these portions fell to the share of the plaintiffs respondents. When they proceeded to execute the decree for the recovery of possession, they were opposed by the appellants who contended, that they could not be evicted under this decree, and that, in any event, the provisions of the Travancore - Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, created a bar to such eviction. The objections have been overruled by the Court below and hence this appeal.
(2.) The first contention, that a partition suit is not hit by the provisions of S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the appellants are not bound by the, decree for partition and recovery of possession, is opposed to the weight of decided cases and has to be overruled. The second contention cannot be sustained for the reason, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the respondents and the appellants. With the institution of the suit for partition the joint ownership came to an end, and though, as between the first defendant and the appellants, there was relationship of landlord and tenant, the respondents were not in the position of landlords with respect to the buildings allotted to them on partition, for the simple reason, that they did not enter into any lease transaction with the appellants concerning them. The respondents do not fulfil the character of a landlord as defined by the aforesaid Order. That definition reads:
(3.) In a similar case, Pappi Narayanan v. Itti Avira Neithi, 1956 KLT 618 , where the question arose under the Travancore - Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, Sankaran, J., as he then was, overruled a similar objection on the part of a Kudikidappukaran by the following observations:-