PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. GOPINATHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal by the defendant against the concurrent decrees of the courts below in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, roughly 15 cents in extent, all that matters seems to be an interpretation of the relevant provisions in Ext. P2 rent deed hmSI]{Xw in order to ascertain whether the executant therein satisfies the requirement of 'lessee' referred to in S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969.

(2.) Facts are not much in dispute. The plaint schedule property is part of a larger item, 25 cents in extent, belonging to the plaintiff. Under three engagements one of the year 1121, one of the year 1124 (Ext. P1) and another of the year 1961 (Ext. P2), the defendant had been making use of the plaint schedule property for the purpose of stacking timber and carrying on his trade. The recital in Ext. P2 refers to Ext. P1 as well as the earlier engagement of the year 1121. Ext. P2 is an unregistered document written on stamp paper styled as 'vadaka pathram' (rent deed) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of allowing the defendant to have the timber unloaded in the plaint schedule property, and to carry on his trade on the terms and conditions stipulated in the document for a period of one year on a rent of Rs. 22 per mensem. Clause.2 in Ext. P2 provides that only temporary sheds for trade could be constructed by the defendant, and that on the expiry of the stipulated period of one year without any demur the defendant would remove the structure and vacate, the place. Clause.3 provides that granite stones, bricks or laterite stones would not be used for the construction and that the building would be confined to a shed with a roof on pillars. Clause.4 is to the effect that if the bund on the southern side happens to be demolished by the defendant for the purpose of his trade, he would at his expense repair it at the time of his vacating the premises; otherwise the defendant would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30 by way of damages, to the plaintiff. Clause.5 stipulates that in case there are coconut trees within the place where the shed is constructed, no obstruction in the matter of enjoyment of the coconut trees would be caused by the defendant. Clause.6 provides that no damage would be caused either to the compound or to the trees therein. Clause.7 is to the effect that the defendant would not do anything which would be injurious to the trees in the plaint schedule property; he would not plant any trees in the property. Clause.8 states that the defendant will not sub rent the compound to any other person; in case, contrary to this undertaking, any subletting is made, it will be invalid and for that reason alone the defendant Could be evicted from the property. Clause.9 provides that if there is any default in payment of monthly rent, defendant would be liable to demolish his shed in the property and vacate the premises. Clause.10 shows that the temporary shed constructed on the foundation laid by the plaintiff will be removed by the defendant at his expense at the time of his vacating the property. Clause.11 is to the effect that in case of arrears of rent the shed and other belongings of the defendant will be security for such amounts. Clause.12 provider that in case any loss arises to the plaintiff on account of this transaction, the defendant was liable to make good the loss. If the defendant acts in contravention of this agreement, he will be liable to vacate the premises even before the expiry of the stipulated period of one year. The plaintiff would also be at liberty to collect rent at enhanced rate as stipulated by him which could be realised from the defendant's properties. It also says that the rent deed executed in favour of P. E. Narayana Pillai, the father of the plaintiff, on 1st Thulam 1121 and to the plaintiff on 14th Makaram 1124 became 'cancelled', and that has necessitated this fresh agreement. It is not considered necessary to advert to Ext. P1 as the conditions are more or less the same, though the terms in Ext. P2 appear to be more stringent than those of Ext. P1. However we may advert to Ext. P4 which is the report submitted by the commissioner which, inter alia, shows that on this 15 cents of land there were, at the time of his inspection, 30 coconut trees and a jack tree. This is necessary to have an idea about the nature of the plaint schedule property and the restricted manner in which the land could have been used by the defendant in terms of Ext. P2 rent deed.

(3.) Sri Vyasan Poti, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that both the courts below have not properly construed Ext. P2 in the background of the provisions contained in S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is also submitted that the literal interpretation without bearing in mind the purpose of S.106 would virtually defeat the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Ram Ram Das v. Vidyat Cable and Rubber Industry 1969 (II) S.C.W.R. 652 wherein it has been held that