PURUSHOTHAM G PLYWOOD CO Vs. HAMSA KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after terminating the tenancy created by Ext. A1 dated 14-11-1959. According to the respondent the suit transaction Ext. A1 though a registered lease deed for a term of 12 years and under which forty seers of paddy per annum was payable as rent was not a tenancy protected by the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Act for short, and that therefore the respondent is entitled to recover possession after termination of the tenancy. The appellants resisted the suit contending inter alia that the lease transaction Ext. A1 confers fixity of tenure on them under S.13 of the Act and that therefore they cannot be evicted. The Trial Court on the basis of the finding by the Land Tribunal held that Ext. A1 though a lease is not an agricultural lease and that therefore the appellants are not entitled to claim fixity of tenure under S.13 of the Act. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the appellant the Lower Appellate Court agreed with the view of the Trial Court that only leases in respect of lands which are used for agricultural purposes qualify for protection under the Act and that therefore the decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court was correct. It is challenging this decree of the Lower Appellate Court that the appellants have come up with this Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit transaction Ext.A1 is named by the parties as a lease deed (pattadharam). It provides for payment of forty seers of paddy per year as rent. The lessee is a company. The document says that the lessee is entitled to hold the property for a period of twelve years and use the land. There are other clauses which are consistant with a lease. In fact the stand adopted by the respondent himself is that this transaction is a lease. Therefore there is no difficulty in holding that Ext. A1 is a lease of land in favour of a company .There is no mention in Ext.A1 of any specific purpose for which the land was being given and taken on lease. The subject matter of the lease is a strip of land in the middle of the paddy fields belonging to the respondent. It is the respondent's case that this strip of land was taken on lease by the appellants for the purpose of creating a way to their commercial premises. This object is not specified in Ext. A1. But this stand of the respondent finds support from the report of the commissioner who has reported that this strip is being used by the appellants as a road leading to their premises.

(3.) The view essentially taken by the courts below is that since this strip of land was taken on lease by a company-not an agriculturist and the lease was connected with its commercial activity the appellants the lessees are disentitled to claim protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question is as to whether this view expressed by the Lower Appellate Court is correct and is justified by anything contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act