TATA OIL MILLS CO LTD Vs. ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 12 of 1976 of the Sub Court , Alleppey is the appellant. THE plaintiffs (three in number) are the respondents THE suit was laid for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property "kannitta" (drying yard for copra) with arrears of rent. THE suit property is 741/2 cents of land in Sy. No. 826/5 and 829/8 in Alleppy village together with the buildings (sheds) appurtenant thereto. THE monthly rent was rs 440/ -. THE defendant was holding under the mother of the plaintiffs. It could be seen from Ext. B8 dated 11-1-1972 that the tenancy expired on 30-4-1974. THE deceased mother of the plaintiff sent a notice dated 22-10-1974 terminating the tenancy on 30-11-1974. Even after the expiry of the tenancy the defendant is continuing in possession. Repeated requests and demands to vacate the premises were of no avail. At one stage plaintiffs' mother demanded the defendant to paya sum of Rs. 750/- per mensem. This was not acceded to. A suit notice, Ext. Al. dated 1-1-1975 was sent. By Ext. A20, dated 22-1-1975, the properties were gifted to the plaintiffs. On behalf of the plaintiffs Ext. A2 notice dated 26-9-1975 was sent to the defendant, calling upon it to surrender possession. THE defendant did not accede to the request. Finally the suit was laid for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of compensation at Rs. 1000/-per mensem from 1-11-1975, the last date fixed for surrender of possession as per Ext. A2 being 31-11-1975.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit. It was contended that the suit is barred since it relates to eviction of the defendant from the buildings as defined under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE requirement of the plaintiffs is not bona fide and they are not entitled to demand vacant possession. Even after the expiry of the tenancy on 30-4-1974 the plaintiffs accepted the rent for the property till 31-8-1974. THE tenancy was not terminated by an appropriate notice. THE claim for enhanced rent, Rs, 750/-was excessive. Exts. Al and A2 notices are invalid and cannot enable the plaintiffs to demand possession of the property. THEre is no cause of action for the plaintiffs and so the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) WE heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. E R. Venkateswaran and counsel for the respondents Mr. T. S. Venkateswara Iyer. WE are of opinion that none of the contentions raised by the appellant's counsel are tenable.