RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. JOSEPH JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant. The two points urged in support of the appeal are: (1) there was no necessity for the lower appellate court to have entered a finding on the question whether the second defendant was entitled to the benefits of S 106 of Act 1 of 1964; and (2) on the materials on record the lower appellate court should have found that the second defendant is a tenant entitled to the benefits of S.106 of Act 1 of 1964, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act.

(2.) The suit was instituted on the allegations that the first defendant to whom the land describe J in the plaint schedule was leased out for erecting necessary structures for the purpose of carrying on business committed default in the payment of rent and also permitted the second defendant to be in possession of a portion of the building in violation of the terms of the agreement. The defendants contended that they are not liable to be evicted as they are entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Act.

(3.) The Trial Court found that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Act and are not liable to be evicted, and that the first defendant alone is liable for the arrears of rent claimed in the plaint as there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant.