KARUNAKARAN NAIR Vs. SEKHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial court dismissed the 1st respondent's suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit building on the ground that no quit notice was given to the 3rd defendant. THE lower appellate court reversed the same and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the 3rd defendant.

(2.) TWO questions of law arise in this appeal, namely, (i)whether demand for rent coupled with or without acceptance of rent by the lessor from the assignee of the lessee would create privity of contract between the lessor and the assignee; and (ii) if it would, whether in the absence of a quit-notice to the assignee, the lessor can evict him on the basis of such a notice given only to the original lessee. Incidentally, it also falls to be decided as to whether Ext. Al lease-deed contains 'a contract to the contrary dispensing with giving such a notice.

(3.) WE are inclined to agree with the learned Munsiff. Plaintiff admits that he has received Ext. BI notice. By Ext. BI notice the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff of Ext. B3 assignment and told him that he (the 1st defendant) has no more any liability under Ext. Al lease deed. The 1st defendant also by that notice asked the plaintiff to look to the 2nd defendant as lessee. The plaintiff did not object to this. Admittedly he has received rent after Ext. BI notice. Such rent would not have been paid by the 1st defendant and it would have been paid only by the 2nd defendant. So also Ext. B7 demand would indicate that the plaintiff was treating the 3rd defendant as liable therefor, as otherwise, he would not and could not, ask him to pay rent or portion thereof. By Ext. B7 the plaintiff asked for portion of rent for february 1965 which means, that rent upto and inclusive of that for January 1965 had been paid. Both the lower courts refused to believe the plaintiff when he sought to explain away Ext, B7 as a demand for payment of rent of another building. Viewed in that backdrop and taken along with the plaintiff's admitted case that rent upto and inclusive for January 1965 has been paid it has to be held that the 3rd defendant paid Rs. 5/-pursuant to the demand in Ext. B7 as stated by the defendant as dw,1. After Ext. B4 assignment, the 2nd defendant would not have, and only the 3rd defendant would have, paid rent. Hence we accept the finding entered by the learned Munsiff that defendants 2 and 3 have paid the plaintiff the rent that fell due after the respective assignments in their favour and that the plaintiff has received such payments.