PADIPARAMBATH MEETHAL RAGHAVAN Vs. T.UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Principal Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode in O.S.No.27 of 2005 as modified by the III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in A.S.No.227 of 2008.

(2.) THE original plaintiff (respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff) sued the appellant/defendant for a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant to vacate the plaint A schedule building with arrears of license fee and damages for use and occupation. According to the original plaintiff, as per Ext.A1, license agreement dated 05.05.2003 the plaint A schedule and the plaint B schedule movables were given to the appellant for a period of 11 months on condition of payment of license fee at the rate of Rs.1,200.00 per month. It is the further case of the original plaintiff that though in Ext.A1, license agreement Rs.20,000.00 was mentioned as security paid, the appellant paid only Rs.9,500.00 in cash and issued a cheque dated 31.02.2004 for the balance amount which was dishonoured. The license fee is in arrears after 04.02.2004. The period of license expired by 04.04.2004. Original plaintiff issued Ext.A3, notice to the appellant to which the appellant sent Ext.A5, reply raising frivolous contentions. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE trial court found in favour of due execution of Ext.A1, held that it is a license and granted a decree in favour of the original plaintiff. The trial court also found that though Ext.A1 mentioning the security deposit of Rs.20,000.00, the appellant had paid only Rs.9,500.00.