THOMAS VARKEY Vs. ARUNDHATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of a small plot of 10 cents (item 1), the removal of a shed (item 2) standing on item 1 and for recovery of rent. The Trial Court granted plaintiff a decree for part of the arrears of rent claimed by her but disallowed the other two reliefs holding that the defendant is entitled to the protection of S.106, Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 ("the Act"). On appeal by the plaintiff the Additional Subordinate Judge granted the plaintiff the reliefs in respect of the land and shed as well and further allowed her the arrears of the rent which had been disallowed by the Munsiff on the ground of limitation.

(2.) By Ext. A1 dated September 6, 1961 DW 2 who is the defendant's son and one Joseph George who is the latter's brother inlaw took the land (item 1) for a term of 3 years with permission to erect a shed, instal machinery and carry on the business of a saw mill. By an endorsement Ext. A2 dated June 10, 1962 made on Ext. A1 DW 2 and Joseph George surrendered item 1 to ' the plaintiff, even though the term had not expired and assigned their rights in the building (shed) and machinery to the defendant and Varkey Joseph, the father of Joseph George. On the same day the defendant and Varkey Joseph executed a rent deed Ext. A3 taking item 1 for a period of three years. Thereafter the defendant obtained an assignment of the rights of Varkey Joseph in the shed and machinery. On July 15, 1965 the defendant executed a rent deed Ext. A4 to the plaintiff with a term of 3 years from June 10, 1965 when the terms of Ext. A3 expired. It recites that he has purchased the rights of Varkey Joseph in the machinery and shed, that the latter has vacated the premises and retired from the business and that the defendant was therefore executing the rent deed on his own responsibility. On August 21, 1969 the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff surrendering the adjacent 61/2 cents which was in his possession as a tenant and agreeing to continue the tenancy over item 1 for three years from June 10, 1968 when the term under Ext. A4 expired and pay the proportionate rent. The plaintiff brought the suit in 1972 for the reliefs mentioned earlier,

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that he was not liable to surrender the land or to remove the shed and machinery as he was entitled to the benefits under S.106 of the Act, that the amounts claimed in the plaint were not correct and that in any event part of the claim was barred by limitation.