PAROLI SUNDER DAS Vs. K KARTHIAYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant, who suffered a decree at the hands of the lower appellate court before the Sub Court, Kozhikode is the Appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

(2.) The Defendant was put in occupation of the plaint schedule premises, according to the Plaintiff, on the basis of Ext.A1 licence. Ext.A1 was periodically renewed and according to the Plaintiff the period of licence expired on 18.10.1991 and then the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to vacate the premises. The Defendant did not heed to the demand. Therefore the suit was laid.

(3.) The Defendant resisted the suit by pointing out that he was in possession of the property on the basis of a lease agreement and not on the basis of a licence. Though styled as a licence it was infact a lease and it periodically renewed and the rent was also enhanced. It was further contended that fresh agreement was executed on 11.10.1991 for a period of three years and since that has not expired the suit is not maintainable.