SANKARAN NAMBISSAN Vs. SARVOTHAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the plaintiff in a small cause suit, which was dismissed by the Munsiff, Kozhikode holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The revision petition came before a learned Judge of this Court, who thought that the question involved was an important one to be considered by a Division Bench. Hence the revision petition has been referred to us.

(2.) The first question to be considered is whether the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner. The only evidence available regarding the nature of the transaction between the parties is Ext. A1, a compromise entered into by them in O.S. No. 802 of 1967. The compromise recites that there was an arrangement between the parties previously (of October 17, 1949) allowing the respondent to put up sheds for the purpose of conducting a school on a plot of land belonging to the petitioner, the respondent agreeing to pay Rs. 30/- a month. Though the amount agreed to was Rs. 30/- per month, the respondent was paying only Rs. 25/- per month. In addition to that plot, another area was also added under Ext. A1; and on the aggregate the respondent had to pay Rs. 40/- per month. The total extent of the land under Ext. A1 was 111 ft. by 111 ft. The respondent bad no right to construct anymore sheds on the plot excepting those allowed and had also no right to plant any trees thereon. It is also recited in Ext. A1 that the petitioner continued in possession of the trees on the plot. And the plaint also proceeds on the basis that the arrangement between the parties was not a lease, but only something in the nature of a licence, under which the respondent had the right to put up sheds on the plot for conducting the school. It may also be mentioned that the only witness (DW 1) examined on the side of the respondent was not the respondent himself; and the witness said that the respondent alone knew about the nature of the arrangement of 1949 that the witness did not know about it.

(3.) Ex.A1 was in January 1968; and the respondent paid Rs. 40/- per month until the end of 1969. From 1st January 1970, on which date Act 35 of 1969 came into force, the respondent refused to pay; and the suit was for the arrears for seven months. The claim of the respondent was that he was a tenant coming within Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and that the plot mentioned in Ext. A1 vested in the State under S.72 of the Act, i.e., the petitioner was no more the owner of the land.