K. C. VELAYUDHAN Vs. N. V. VENKATAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants. The suit O. S.223/80 was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. Plaint schedule property comprising of an area of 45 cents with the buildings thereon belong to plaintiff. The land together with buildings were taken on lease by the first defendant and K. C. Pazhanimala, father of defendants 2 and 3 as per a registered lease deed dated 23-1-1967. The lease was taken for purpose of running a petrol bunk and to carry on other commercial activities for a period of 12 years. The period ended on 31-12-1978. The lease deed was executed in renewal of earlier lease deed of the year 1950 which itself was a renewal of a deed of 1945. Even in 1945 there were buildings in the property. On the death of Pazhanimala defendants 2 and 3 are in occupation along with the first defendant. A partnership was formed by defendants 1 to 3 under the name and style M/s. K. C. P., K.C.V. and Company. Fourth defendant is that firm. Since the defendants defaulted payment of rent plaintiff had to file a suit as O.S. 11/72. A decree was obtained and the entire decree amount was realised. No rent was paid thereafter. The tenancy was terminated and a petition was filed before the Rent Control Court, Palghat which was dismissed for the reason that it was premature, the term of the lease expiring only on 23-1-1978. A Petition was thereafter filed for eviction on the ground of rent arrears and bona fide need. Defendants claimed to be lessees entitled to fixity of tenure and on that preliminary point the petition was dismissed. That necessitated the suit.

(2.) In the joint written statement filed by defendants they contended that defendants have permanent right of tenancy, that they put up several, buildings, that these buildings were constructed in connection with the petrol bunk business and that they are entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The dispute of tenancy was referred to Land Tribunal, Palghat. The Tribunal held that the lease was of land and building and the benefits of S.106 are not available to fee defendants. Accepting that finding the court below decreed the suit Aggrieved by that decision defendants have come up in appeal.