V. KAVITHA Vs. N. JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RFA No. 555/2013 is filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 734/2011 and RFA No. 687/2013 is from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 919/2009.

(2.) WE have heard Sri. Leo George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RFA No. 555/2013 and the respondent in R.F.A. No. 687/2013 and Sri. S. Santhosh Kumar also for the appellant in RFA No. 687/2013 and for the respondent in RFA No. 555/2013.

(3.) VARIOUS contentions were raised by the respondent/defendant including one that the licence is irrevocable. It was further contended that there was an oral agreement between the parties to renew the licence for a further period of five years from 2014 and that the plaintiff had collected a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - from the defendant on the date of execution of Ext. A1 agreement towards the rent payable for the period after 2014. Accordingly a counter claim has also been raised by the respondent for the declaration that he is entitled to get the licence arrangement renewed for a further period of five years from 17.6.2014 and for a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to execute necessary document to enable him to occupy the factory for the extended period also.