MAMMU Vs. GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 83/98 of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram is the appellant. The Trial Court decreed the suit and confirmed in appeal by the appellate court, against which the appeal is preferred. Since the respondent filed a caveat, both sides were heard at the time of admission and disposed of the matter.

(2.) The plaint schedule is a shop room in a building which originally" belonged to one Kunhikanaran, which was taken on lease by the plaintiff and he was conducting a hotel business there. While so, he entrusted the shop room and the plaint B schedule movables to the defendant as per licence agreement dated 2.3.1995. Thereafter the defendant was conducting the hotel business in the plaint A schedule property as the licensee under the plaintiff. Licence Fee was fixed at Rs.150/- per day. From 1.11.1997 the defendant defaulted in payment of the licence fee. The period of licence was over by February, 1997. The plaintiff demanded surrender of plaint A and B schedule property with arrears of licence fee. It was denied by the defendant. Whereupon, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of plaint A and 5 schedule property with arrears of licence fee.

(3.) The defendant contended that he is neither a tenant nor a licensee under the plaintiff. He also denied the execution of the agreement dated 2.3.1996. According to him, there is no stipulation to pay Rs. 150/- by way of licence fee to the plaintiff. He set up a tenancy right over plaint A and B schedule property under the landlord Kunhikanaran. He also contended that the building is situated in an area where the Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act applies. He denied the possession of the plaintiff over plaint A and B schedule property. According to him, the property belonged to one Kunhikanaran, a close relative of the plaintiff. Since Kunhikanaran is a Government employee, the licence was taken in the name of the plaintiff for running the hotel. According to him, the plaint schedule building and the movables were entrusted directly to the defendant in the year 1972 on a rent of Rs. 4.50 per day and since then the defendant was doing the business in the building as a tenant under Kunhikanaran. There was a subsequent enhancement of rent under the mediation of one Moosakutly Haji and an agreement was written and executed on 7.1.1979. The said agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant, since Kunhi Kanaran was a Government servant. According to him, the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the suit.