MAMOO Vs. ASYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the appellants, namely defendants 2 and 3 challenges no doubt the decrees of the subordinate courts directing the eviction of the appellants from the properties concerned. But the point that has been pressed before us by the learned counsel is the one based upon the provisions of S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Act 1 of 1964 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions that have been taken before us by the learned counsel on both sides it is necessary to indicate the circumstances under which the suit was filed, as well as the findings recorded by both the courts.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted the suit as against the first defendant as well as the appellants defendants 2 and 3 for eviction from the property concerned. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant had taken a vacant site on lease under Ext. A 1 for the purpose of putting up a shop building in connection with the business. There is no controversy that the first defendant appears to have actually put up a building and later on he has also subleased the properties in favour of the appellants defendants 2 and 3, who also, after demolishing the original building put up by the first defendant have put up a fresh building on the site in question.