SURENDRAN NAIR Vs. LEELAVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main substantial question of law raised in this second appeal filed by the 2nd defendant is whether the decree for eviction is bad for want of proper notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) THE subject-matter of the suit is a shed used for the purpose of conducting a saw mill. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the land and the shed and alleged that the same was rented out to the 1st defendant on 27-5-1972 under Ext. A2. Second defendant is said to be a sub-tenant inducted into occupation by the 1st defendant. First defendant did cot contest. THE appellant-2nd defendant contended that the shed was actually put by the 1st defendant and the saw mill including the shed was assigned in his favour. He also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable for want of proper notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) ON the question of status of the appellant also I do not think that any interference is called for. In the written statement itself the appellant claimed only to be an assignee of the 1st defendant. Even that contention was found against by both the courts below. Both the courts found that he is only a purchaser of the machinery. Exts. B1 and B2 are the agreements relied on by the appellant. They were between the appellant and the 1st defendant. Even after Exts. B1 and B2 the direction was that the appellant should pay rent and obtain receipts in the name of the 1st defendant. That means that the tenancy in favour of the 1st defendant was continuing even after the arrangement between defendants 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff is that there is no privity of contract between her and the appellant and that the appellant neither attorned to her nor did she recognise the appellant as her tenant. In the written statement the appellant bad no case that he attorned to the plaintiff or that the plaintiff recognised him as the tenant. As dw. 1 he admitted that he never attorned to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the courts below went wrong in finding that the appellant is not the tenant of the plaintiff.