LAWS(KER)-1953-1-30

BHARAT INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BIVATHU AND ORS.

Decided On January 18, 1953
Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Bivathu And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Bharat Insurance Company, Ltd., represented by its Secretary of the Ernakulam branch. The plaint schedule building was given on rent to the Bharat Insurance Company Ltd., by one Shri Marath Achutha Menon, who was then having possession of the building as a trustee of the trust to which the building belonged. The rent agreed was Rs. 50/ - per mensem from 1 -4 -1943. Shri Achutha Menon, subsequently sold the property to one Ismail Sait on 12 -11 -1120 under Ex. A sale deed. Even before the sale of the house, Shri Achutha Menon had issued a notice for surrender of the building. But the Defendant sent a reply demanding an extension of tenancy for seven months from 25 -2 -1945 under the provisions of the Non -residential Building Rent Control Order of 1118. Shri Achutha Menon moved the Rent Controller for an order to disallow the extension claimed. But his petition was dismissed and the appeal filed by him against that order was also dismissed. Thus the Defendant -Company was entitled to retain possession of the building till 25 -9 -1945.

(2.) THE Defendant contended that the building was rented not exclusively for office use, but partly for office use and partly for the residence of the Secretary, that only four rooms on the ground floor were used as office and the remaining portion of the building and the premises were used for residential purposes, that the term of tenancy was therefore governed by the provisions of the Cochin House Rent Control Order of 1117, that the building was occupied only from 10 -4 -1943, that in the petition filed by Shri Achutha Menon, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had found that this was not a building falling under the purview of the House Rent Control Order, that this finding was incorrect, that the Company had claimed extension of the period of their tenancy under the Non -residential Building Rent Control Order by notices Exs. VII and VIII, that the period mentioned therein would expire only on 25 -11 -1946, that the suit was premature, that there was no valid notice issued at any time to determine the tenancy, that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any interest as the rent happened to be in arrears because of the refusal of the Plaintiffs to receive the same and that the compensation claimed for use and occupation was in any event excessive.

(3.) IN appeal before this Court it was first argued that this suit for eviction and compensation was not maintainable as the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit after the Proclamation 4 of 1122 (C). This is not made the subject matter of an issue because the proclamation itself was passed with effect from 11 -2 -1122,. that is, after the present Suit was filed. But this objection was taken as ground No. 6 in the memorandum of appeal.