NINAN IYPE Vs. JOHN M PUNNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant In a suit for eviction and allied reliefs Is the appellant. THE trial court gave a decree as prayed for, and that has been confirmed in appeal.

(2.) TEE plaintiff's case is as follows: To 21st plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and the sheds therein. The plaint schedule property with the sheds therein were leased out to the defendant by the first plaintiff for a period of two years from 1101963 on a monthly rent of rs. 30/- under a registered lease deed, Ext. PI, dated 7 10 1963- After the expiry of the period of the lease, the defendant continued to occupy the plaint schedule property and sheds paying rent at the same rate. During the absence of the 1st plaintiff from the station, the second plaintiff, brother of the 1st plaintiff, had been looking after the affairs of the plaint schedule property and receiving its rent etc. on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. The defendant had kept the rent in arrears from December 1967. Contrary to the terms of the lease deed, the defendant had put up a lean-to on the back of the shed without the permission of the plaintiffs. The defendant was also storing timber logs in the said lean-to in violation of the terms of the lease deed and in spite of the protests of the plaintiffs. For the unauthorised use of the place beyond the area permitted in the lease deed, the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 26/-per month by way of damages. Though the plaintiffs had sent a notice to the defendant on 5 81969 terminating the lease as on 3181969 and demanding surrender of the property on the next day, which the defendant had received on 118 1969, the defendant bad not complied with the requirements of the said notice. Damages for use and occupation of the schedule property at the rate of Rs. 30/-from 191969 till the date of eviction also was claimed in the plaint. Plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent and damages as stated above.

(3.) SRI. P. K. Kesavan Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits, that though the findings of the courts below are concurrent and are against the defendant, be is still entitled to canvass the correctness of those decisions, as they are vitiated by error of law. Arguments have been advanced before me under three heads: (1) the defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure under S. 13 of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969; (2) he is entitled to the protection under S. 106 of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969; and (3) the lease is one for manufacturing purpose and as such, six months' notice to quit not having been given, the suit is bad for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 106 of the T. P. Act. I will deal with each of these contentions one by one.