V.M. RAVINDRAN Vs. P.K. VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a suit for mandatory injunction is the appellant. The appellant had also filed a suit against the respondent for injunction against forcible dispossession from the plaint schedule building. The appellant contended that he had taken the plaint schedule building on rent from the respondent with liability to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month. It was alleged that he has been in possession of the said building since January, 2008. The respondent on the other hand contended that the plaint schedule building was obtained on lease from the GCDA (Greater Cochin Development Authority) as per Ext. A1 lease deed. The further case of the respondent is that the appellant who is an employee was permitted to do the work in the Barber shop run in the plaint schedule building, on "piece rate basis" as per a written request dated 1-8-2002. The lease set up by the appellant was denied. Since the appellant contended that he is a tenant and that he should not be evicted , the respondent filed the suit for mandatory injunction to direct him to vacate the plaint schedule building.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent was examined as P.W.1. The appellant/defendant was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the respondent and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the appellant. Ext. A1 is the lease deed executed by the GCDA and P.W.1 (the respondent herein). The payment of the receipts and other documents would negative the contention raised by the appellant that he is a tenant of the building. The contention raised by the appellant is that he obtained lease from the respondent (P.W.1). That was also found against by the courts below since no cogent and convincing evidence was adduced by the appellant. Exts. B1 to B8 will not prove that as on the date of the suit and prior to that the appellant was ever in possession of the plaint schedule building as a tenant. The fact that he happened to be in the barber employed by the respondent (P.W.1) will not confer any right on the appellant to cling on to the premises.

(3.) NOW , before this Court, argument has been advanced by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant that if the decree is sustained the appellant, who according to the respondent, is an employee would be denied employment and his employment would be simply terminated without recourse to the provisions contained in Sec. 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960 ("the Act) . The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if in fact the respondent had admitted the appellant's contention that he was a tenant under the respondent and that he was liable to pay Rs. 6000/- per month infact the respondent would have been benefited since the rent payable for more than 60 months as on today (from January 2008 onwards) would be more than Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is stated that no amount was paid by the appellant to the respondent. That apart, the contention that the he cannot be evicted without notice as required under Sec. 18 of the Act is not a ground which arose for consideration before the courts below.