KORAH PUNNEN Vs. PARAMESWARA KURUP VASUDEVA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Clause.6, Clause.9(1) -- The Travancore Code (Lease and Rent) Control Order, 1950 was not intended to deal with private rights only. The Order was issued under the Travancore -- Cochin Public Safety Measures Act -- An enactment intended to avert such a situation cannot be said to be a private piece of legislation meant merely to confer certain benefits on a limited class of people. It will be an enactment based on public policy for achieving a public purpose -- The object of such an enactment cannot be achieved if parties are allowed to contract out of it

(2.) The defendants are the appellants. The appeal is from the decision of M.S. Menon, J., in Second Appeal No. 953 of 1952 of this Court and was filed with leave granted by him. The Division Bench before which the appeal came up for hearing referred it to a Full Bench by the following Order of Reference:-

(3.) The suit was instituted on 8.5.1123 by the original plaintiff, who is now dead, against the first defendant, the Managing Director of a company known as Punnan and Kurup (India) Limited, for recovery of a building with arrears of rent. The second defendant company-was subsequently impleaded in the suit. After the death of the original plaintiff, plaintiffs 2 to 4, her legal representatives, continued the suit. When the suit was instituted the Travancore Buildings Rent Control Order, 1122 was in force. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the building as she required it for her own residence, as the rent was in default from Chingom 1123 onwards and as the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff in the reply notice sent by him on 3.1.1123. The first defendant contended that the plaintiff had no title to the building and to the property in which it was situated and that they had been sold to him by the original owner thereof. The second defendant company-also raised the same contentions. The suit was subsequently compromised by the parties and a compromise petition was filed in court on 25.7.1951. The defendants admitted the title of the plaintiffs to the building and its site. They also paid the rent due to the plaintiffs till the end of Karkatagom 1126. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to occupy the building for one year more from the 1st Chingom 1127 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-, the rent being payable before the 30th of every month. The defendants agreed to surrender possession of the building to the plaintiffs after the 31st Karkatagam 1127 (15th August 1952). If the defendants failed to surrender possession within that date of the plaintiffs could recover possession of the building by executing the decree. The defendants also agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- a month from the date of the expiry of the term of one year. It was provided that if default was made in the payment of the rent for any one month the defendants would be liable to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- a month from the date of default and also to surrender possession even before the expiry of the term. The defendants recognized the right of the plaintiffs to be in possession of the compound in which the building is situated. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise.