SACHIDANANDAN Vs. CHETTISSERY KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for eviction and other incidental reliefs is the appellant in the second appeal. Both the courts have decreed the suit as prayed for.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as per Ext.A1 rent deed dated 5.12.1988. The period of lease was six months and rent was Rs.100/- per month. The purpose of the lease was for additional convenience of the Engineering Works business which was conducted by the defendant in the premises adjacent to the plaint schedule property. The rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 125/-. The defendant unauthorisedly put up a shed by connecting the two walls on either side of the plaint schedule property. It was put up in the absence of the plaintiff while he was away for treatment at Palakkad. The plaintiff sent a notice on 17.11.1995 terminating the tenancy and filed the suit since no surrender of the property was made.

(3.) In the written statement, it was contended that the shed was put up with the consent of the plaintiff and additional rent of Rs.25/- was given for that reason. Even after he came to know of the construction of the shed, the plaintiff received rent and therefore there is acquiescence. No eviction is possible without recourse to the Rent Control Court. There was no valid notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. After framing necessary issues, the trial court found that the suit was maintainable and there was no necessity to approach the Rent Control Court as there was no entrustment of a building to the tenant and the shed was constructed, according to the plaintiff, unauthorisedly. The trial court also found that S.74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act will not stand in the way of the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession as the tenancy was created for commercial purpose and was exempted under S.3(iii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was further found that the notice sent was valid and proper under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plea of estoppel and acquiescence were found against.