CHACKO Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first two of the three appeals herein are against the same appellate judgement and decree on the trial side, in OS No. 921 of 1123, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Shertallai, and are filed by the tenth defendant and the plaintiffs respectively. The third appeal arises from an appellate order in execution of the decree in the case as regards delivery. The suit, OS No. 921 of 1123, was for recovery of the plaint item with arrears of rent. Mathoo Varkey was the original tenant under Ex. C lease dated 28-8-1108. His rights were sold in court auction and purchased by the defendants 3 to 5. The tenth defendant had taken sublease of portion of plaint item 1 from Mathoo Varkey and had besides, constructed thereon the chapra or factory building, viz., item 2 of the plaint schedule, for the manufacture of coir mattings. The suit was contested on various grounds by the defendants, but it was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff by both the courts below subject to payment of more or less amounts towards value of improvements. We are concerned in the first two appeals mostly with the quantum of improvement value due to the defendants 3 and 10. We will now take up the appeals one by one.

(2.) SA No. 735 of 1955

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants 3 to 5 respondents, suggested that S.3 (a) could apply only if the lease in question was by Government and in respect of their interest in the land. So if the lessor was any one other than Government, e. g., the first plaintiff Namboodhiri and the leasehold comprised the interest of such lessor, the fact that the land appertained to Government did not matter. But there is no warrant for this suggestion, particularly in view of the several exceptions contained in S.3. The classification, it is clear, is not on any uniform basis. Clause (a) refers to the ownership of the land concerned while clause (b) refers to the person of the lessor apart from ownership. Clause (c) refers to the nature of the property while clauses (d) and (e) refer to the purposes of the lease. The emphasis under clause (a) would thus seem to be Governmental ownership of the land leased. Reference may be made in this connection to Batia Cooperative Housing Society v. D. C. Patel, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 16 which related to the applicability of S.4(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (47of 1947) to similar effect that the Act would not apply to premises belonging to Government or local authorities. The contention that was raised in that case that the Act would apply only to cases of Government and their lessees and not to cases between lessees and sublessees. Their Lordships overruled the contention to hold that the exemption was with respect to a class of lands and not with respect to persons dealing with such lands.