VEERIAH Vs. MOHAMMED KUNJU KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. 817/84 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alleppey is the appellant in the second appeal. Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain the first defendant from executing the order of the Rent Controller passed in R.C.P. 78/77. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court which was later confirmed in appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff let out the plaint schedule building to the first defendant on 6-10-70 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ as per Ext. A3 rent deed. The tenancy was for a period of 5 months. The first defendant sublet the plaint schedule building to the 2nd defendant, who, in turn, sublet the building to the 3rd defendant. Appellant filed R.C.P. 11/84 for eviction of the tenants. Prior to this defendants 1 and 2 had filed R.C.P. 78/77 to evict the 3rd defendant from the plaint schedule building. R.C.P. 78/77 was allowed and the 3rd defendant was directed to surrender possession of the building. During the pendency of R.C.P. 11/84 that is, R.C.P. filed by the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant, who was in possession of the building surrendered possession of the same to the plaintiff on 6-11-84. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a memo before the Rent Controller stating that R.C.P. 11/84 is not pressed and accordingly R.C.P. 11/84 was dismissed. The plaintiff alleges that defendants 1 and 2 are trying to execute the order they obtained in R.C.P. 78/77 by dispossessing the plaintiff, who got possession of ;e building from the 3rd defendant.

(3.) Both the courts have found that there was no surrender of the building by the 3rd defendant and that the building was in the possession of the 3rd defendant and the alleged surrender is not true.