BHARATH INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KADIR KUNJU BIVATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the Bharat Insurance Company, limited, represented by its Secretary of the Ernakulam branch. THE plaint schedule building was given on rent to the Bharat Insurance Company Limited 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 Ext 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. After obtaining the sale deed Ismail Sait who is now dead and whose legal representatives are the plaintiffs had demanded of the defendant to surrender possession of the building as they wanted the same for their personal use. This notice was sent on 21-9-1945. It is Ext. XII. THE defendant straight away sent a cheque for Rs. 50/- to cover the rent for September 1945; but it was returned unaccepted since the landlord was" unwilling to continue the tenancy any longer after the date of the termination of the extended period. THE tenancy had terminated on 25-9-1945 and so the plaintiffs claimed immediate possession by the suit. THEy claimed rent at Rs. 50/- per mensem from the first September till 25th September 1945. THEreafter they claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 150/- a month for use and occupation. Interest on the amounts was also claimed.

(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 Exts. 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 End that the compensation claimed for use and occupation was in any event excessive.

(3.) IT was also argued that the tenancy originally created had not-been terminated by a proper and valid notice. For this it was assumed that the tenant was in possession on a monthly tenancy as contemplated by section 103 of the Cochin Transfer of Property Act, corresponding to section 106 of the Indian Act. That section provides that leases in such a case can be terminated either by the lessor or lessee by 15 days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. IT was contended that there was no such notice. No doubt, when the tenancy commenced it was a monthly tenancy. But subsequently it lost that characteristic. The Non-residential Rent Control Order of 1118 (C)had made a provision in rule 9 that a tenant in possession, on the termination of the tenancy, could, by a notice, extend the period by not less than six months and not more than twelve months. On 27-11-1944, the landlord had demanded of the tenant to vacate the house within three months from 25-11-1944. A reply Ext. O was sent the same day acknowledging receipt of the notice and stating that immediately the company got a suitable building for office the plaint building would be vacated. This was again confirmed by another letter ext. S dated 9-1-1945. Subsequently, on 19-1-1945, the Company sent Ext. I letter giving notice of their intention to get tenancy of the house extended for a period of seven months with effect from 25-2-1945. This date was mentioned to be the last date on which the house was to be vacated as per Shri achutha Menon's letter of 27-11-1944. IT is now admitted that the extension claimed by the company under rule 9 of the Rent Control Rules of 1118 was not agreed to by the landlord. He had, as provided for in that order, applied to the Rent Controller to veto the extension claimed. The Rent Controller, as well as the appellate authority, admittedly disallowed the landlord's petition. Thus the defendant became a tenant as per the provisions of the Statute for a definite period. The tenancy thus expired by efflux of time and such a tenancy is not governed by the provisions of section 103 of the Cochin Transfer of property Act. Thus a second notice terminating the tenancy was unnecessary.