SORAB ALIAS S P KAVINA Vs. VISWANATHA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the second defendant arises out of a suit for recovery of the site of a shed, with rent, past and future and certain other reliefs.

(2.) The shed which bears Municipal No. 306/XXX, stands in a 23 cent plot in Trichur town. There is a building (called hereunder as the Guest House) in this land and it had been rented by the Sitaram Mills for the residence of its Engineer E. S. Mehta. Mehta was conducting a bobbin factory called Mehta Kavina and Co. in a plot on the north belonging to another tavazhi of the plaintiff's tarwad. For the purpose of this factory Mehta was permitted, by the plaintiff's father Kuttan Nair, to erect a shed in the suit property, on a monthly ' ground rent of Rs. 2.50. Later he was allowed to demolish a portion of the northern compound wall and a portion of the eastern compound wall, on the understanding that he would reconstruct the demolished portions, when he vacated the building. Mehta left the services of the Sitaram Mills and returned to his native place Ahamedabad. The first defendant who is his brother inlaw agreed to remove the shed and restore the compound walls and he also took the Guest House on rent in 1954. The plaintiff has taken other proceedings for eviction in respect of the building. This suit was brought for removal of the shed, recovery of rent and restoration of the compound walls. That in brief is the plaintiff's case. The second defendant was impleaded on the allegation that he was now known to be the proprietor of Mehta Kavina and Co.

(3.) The second defendant alone contested the suit. He said that it was Metha and not the Sitaram Mills that took the Guest House on rent, that he also took on lease an area of 70' x 30' at the northern portion of the suit property on a rent of Rs. 2.50 and that besides erecting the shed he also improved the property by planting trees. On resigning his job at the Sitaram Mills, Mehta assigned his business and leaseholds to the appellant. The appellant is thus in possession of the building, bobbin factory and the compound. The first defendant, his father, has nothing to do with this arrangement. The appellant also denied the other reliefs claimed in the plaint contending that even if the arrangement was a licence it was one coupled with interest and was therefore irrevocable.