NATHURAM SAIT Vs. LILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the plaintiff in a suit for arrears of rent and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and other incidental reliefs. The property admittedly belongs to the plaintiff's family of which the plaintiff is the head. In 1929 the property was taken on lease by one Ramji Rao Kalaji Rao since deceased under Ext. A2. Ext. A2 permitted the construction of certain buildings and prohibited the construction of other types of buildings. After the expiry of the term of Ext. A2 Kalaji Rao executed another marupat Ext. A3 in 1932 By Ext. A3 he agreed to surrender the property on demand after demolishing the buildings and a petrol pump which he was allowed to construct. Pursuant to the lease deeds buildings have been constructed. Kalaji Rao assigned his tenancy to one Yacoob Cheerakkadan, father of the first defendant. Cheerakkadan attorned to the plaintiff and executed a marupat Ext. A4 dated 4-6-1946. The plaintiff issued a registered notice terminating the tenancy and brought the suit. Yacoob Cheerakkadan is dead and he is represented by bis legal representative defendant 1. Defendant 2 is an assignee of the rights of the tenant. Defendants 3 to 19 are sub-tenants.

(2.) THE only defence that needs to be noted is the plea taken by the 2nd defendant claiming the protection of S. 106, Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964 ). THE appellants sought to meet this plea contending that since the land was in the possession of sub-tenants and not of the 2nd defendant he was disentitled to claim the benefits of S. 106. This contention was rejected by the courts below. THE appellant challenges the decisions in this appeal.

(3.) MAMOO v. Asya, 1965 KLT. 126, to which counsel for the appellant referred has no application for it was concerned only with the question whether a sub-lessee was entitled to the benefits of S 106. This Court held that he was not. So is Parameswaran Pillai v. Venkiteswara Prabhu,1974 klt. 210.