KUNJUNNI PILLAI Vs. VISWAMBHARAN

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resisted the same by contending that the order for eviction was discharged by payment of the arrears of rent and superseded by a fresh agreement to continue in possession as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -.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.) BEYOND the plaintiff-appellant the only other witness examined by him was pw. 2, the Branch Manager of the Federal Bank. The new rent arrangement and reduction of rent were alleged to be in his presence. But he did not support the appellant in this respect. Even the alleged surrender of two rooms by the appellant was denied by the respondent who contended that additional space was provided to the Federal Bank with the available vacant space by shifting the corridor. In this respect also the evidence of pw. 2 was not available in support of the case of the appellant. On the question of reduction of rent also the appellant could not get full support from pw. 2 who was alleged to be present at that time. For valid reasons the accounts produced by the appellant was not accepted by the appellate court. There was no entry in the accounts that arrears of rent was paid and the order for eviction was discharged. Though the appellant claimed that he obtained a document from the respondent evidencing payment of arrears and discharge of the eviction order, that document was also not produced in court. On the factual allegation there was only the sole testimony of the appellant controverted by the deposition of the respondent. For this and other reasons the appellate court rejected the self-serving evidence of the appellant and found that the discharge of the eviction order is not correct and the new rent arrangement is only a myth. No substantial question of law is involved in the appreciation of evidence and the factual findings arrived at by the appellate court.