NAGAMONY KUMARASWAMY AND ANR. Vs. S. THIRUCHITTAMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are the Appellants. The suit is for recovery of the plaint property consisting of 62 cents of garden land together with the trees standing thereon, from the Defendant who had taken the property under a lease arrangement for a period of one year as evidenced by the lease deed Ex. C. This property belonged to one Parameswaran Thampi who has been examined as Dw. 2 in the case and the lease deed Ex. C dated 1 -8 -1116 had been executed in his favour by the Defendant. After the expiry of the period fixed in Ex. C, D.W. 2 sold the property to the Plaintiffs under the sale deed Ex. B dated 16 -4 -1120 and authorised them to recover possession of the property from the Defendant. Soon after taking the sale deed Ex. B the Plaintiffs issued a registered notice to the Defendant demanding surrender of possession of the property. But the Defendant refused to surrender possession of the property and set up an agreement between himself and the original owner of the property enabling him to retain possession of the property for an additional period of 6 years over and above the period fixed in Ex. C. The Plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit for recovery of possession of the property with arrears of pattom and also future pattom at the enhanced rate of Rs. 100/ - per mensem. The Defendant resisted the suit on the basis of the agreement already referred to. He also put forward a claim for Rs. 3000/ - towards value of the improvements effected by him in the suit property. The Defendant further contended on the strength of the Travancore House Rent Control Order, 1120, which was in force during the relevant period that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any enhanced rent for the building in the suit property or to have the Defendant evicted from the same. A separate petition, copy of which is Ex. K, was also filed by him before the House Rent Controller seeking protection under the Control Order. The Controller 's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters involved in the present suit was challenged by the Plaintiffs. All the same that objection was overruled by the Controller and he passed an order fixing the rent payable by the Defendant for the building in the suit property at Rs. 6/ - per mensem. This order was confirmed by the appellate authority and Ex. II is copy of the appellate order. The validity of this order was questioned by the Plaintiffs in the suit on the grounds that the order is void and in effective in so far as it was passed by a Tribunal who had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This contention has been negatived by the lower Court which held that the Rent Controller 's order is binding on the Plaintiffs and that they are entitled to recover rent only at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per mensem for the building in the property. The Defendant 's claim for the value of improvements was also allowed by the lower Court and the amount payable on that account was fixed at Fanams 7573 Chapters. 3. Accordingly the decree passed in the case directed the Plaintiffs to pay to the Defendant this amount and also the cost of the commission taken out by the Defendant to assess the value of the improvements in the property and to recover possession of the property with the arrears of rent claimed in the plaint as well as future rent at Rs. 6/ - per mensem. The Plaintiffs were directed to suffer one of their costs. The present appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs is confined to their claim for enhanced rent and also to the lower Court 's directions regarding the costs of the suit.

(2.) IT is mainly on the strength of the Rent Controller's order Ex. II that the lower Court has held that the Plaintiffs could recover rent, for the suit property only at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per mensem. It is argued on behalf of the Appellants that the plaint transaction evidenced by Ex. C lease deed was clearly outside the scope of the Travancore House Rent Control Order, 1120, and as such the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition Ex. K and to pass the order Ex. II. The, provisions of the Rent Control Order were expressly limited to houses as defined in Clause 2 of Section 2 of the order. This definition is as follows:

(3.) LASTLY , there is the question of costs. The Plaintiffs have substantially succeeded in this suit. It is also seen that the Defendant had resisted the suit by setting up false and untenable contentions. Under such circumstances the Plaintiffs are entitled to get their lull costs from the Defendant. As per the stipulations contained in the lease deed Ex. C, the Plaintiffs were not bound to pay the Defendant anything by way of value of improvements effected by him in the property. It was to his own interest to take out a commission to assess the value of the improvements that existed in the property. He must therefore bear the cost of such commission arid there is no justification to direct the Plaintiffs to pay the same. Accordingly the lower Court's decree regarding costs is modified by directing that the Defendant should suffer his own costs and should pay the whole costs of the Plaintiffs.