NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. KOCHASSAN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the 2nd Defendant arises in proceedings in execution of a decree for eviction of a building in Quilon to which the Travancore -Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950 applies. The Plaintiff was himself a lessee of that building under its owner. The suit was on foot of a lease granted by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant with a view to enabling the 2nd Defendant to occupy it for purposes of his business. The plaint averred the term of the lease between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. It averred further that there was an oral agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant to pay rent of the building direct to the Plaintiff and to pay an enhanced rent some time after the lease.

(2.) THE only question that arises and that was argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant is whether his client is entitled to the protection afforded by the said Order and whether he is entitled to claim immunity from eviction except pursuant to an order of the Rent Controller. Attention is drawn to the definition of the landlord and tenant contained in Section 2, clause 3 and 4. Stress is laid upon the explanation to clause 3 which is to the effect that "a tenant who is entitled to sub -let shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this order." Reliance is also placed upon Section 3, clause (1) and (3), and upon Section 9, clause 2, Sub -clause (ii).

(3.) I do not find it necessary to embark upon a more detailed discussion of this question as to me it appears that the matter is clearly beyond any serious controversy. The result is that the orders passed by the Courts below are correct and this second appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs.