PADMANABHA PILLAI Vs. SANKARAN VISWAMBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. His suit for declaration of tenancy right and injunction was allowed by the Trial Court, but dismissed by the appellate court.

(2.) The entire ground floor, first floor and eight rooms in the second floor of a three storied building was taken on rent by the appellant from the prior owner for running a hotel and lodge. After respondent purchased the budding he attorned to him and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Even before the purchase made by the respondent, there was huge arrears of rent. The sale deed authorised the respondent to collect the same. On the ground that there was arrears of rent, the respondent obtained an order for eviction against the appellant in R.C.O.P. 7 of 1967 from the Rent Control Court, Muvattupuzha. For about seven years the order was not executed and the respondent continued to receive whatever payments made by the appellant towards rent. When the respondent filed execution petition in 1975 the appellant resisted the same by contending that the order for eviction was discharged by payment of the arrears of rent and superseded by a fresh agreement to continue in possession as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. He also pleaded that as requested by the respondent he surrendered two rooms in the second floor for being let out to another tenant and from 1-1-1974 the rent was reduced to Rs. 350/- per month. His further claim was that he continued payment of Rs. 350/- and the respondent received the same. On the basis of the fresh arrangement and the fresh tenancy alleged by him the appellant pleaded that the eviction order cannot be executed. The execution court by original of Ext. Al order and the revisional court by original of Ext. A2 order rejected the contention observing that the remedy of the appellant is only by way of filing a fresh suit.

(3.) It was therefore that the appellant filed OS. 301 of 1976 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha for a declaration of his tenancy right on the basis of the new rent arrangement and for injunction restraining eviction on the basis of the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The claim was resisted by the respondent who denied the alleged lease arrangement. He contended that be only received whatever amounts were paid towards arrears and that he was only obliging the appellant by giving some time since the hotel business was being run in the building. On the evidence, the Trial Court accepted the case of the appellant and decreed the suit. The appellate court disagreed with the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.