P JOHN ZACHARIA AND CO Vs. ITTYCHERIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for arrears of rent and accounts is the appellant. The suit was decreed by both the courts. The claim for arrears is in respect of a building which had been let out to the defendant by the plaintiff under Ext. A1 indenture of lease dated 25-3-1955. The lease provided for a period of 10 years subject to renewal for another period of 10 years. The rent payable for the first period was at Rs. 3.000/- per year and for the subsequent period at Rs. 3.600/- per year. The tenant continued in occupation of the building for both the periods and subsequently. The second period expired on 30-6-1975. On 31-8-1975 proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 for eviction of the tenant on the grounds postulated under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv). The claim for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was not pressed before the Rent Control Court. That court ordered eviction under S.11(4)(iv). That order was confirmed finally by the Supreme Court. The appellant tenant vacated the premises on 18-8-1980. The present suit was instituted on 31-10-1978 claiming arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,696.25 per month from 1-9-1975 to 31-3-1977 and Rs. 2,875/- per month from 31-3-1977 to 31-8-1978. The claim is based on what is alleged to be due from the tenant in terms of S.8(2)(a) of the Act. The contention of the plaintiff has been that the contractual tenancy expired by efflux of time on 30-6-1975, subject to an additional period of two months as provided under the contract, and accordingly the defendant became liable to pay rent in terms of S.8(2)(a) instead of the rent agreed to be paid under the contract. This contention was accepted by both the courts. The courts construed the provisions of S.8 and came to the conclusion that, for the period of occupation by the tenant subsequent to the expiry of the contractual tenancy, the rent which was payable was not what had been stipulated under the contract, but an amount which, the courts held, the plaintiff was entitled to calculate with reference to the municipal assessment. The amounts claimed by the plaintiff, the courts found, were so calculated.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant Shri. T. S. Venkataswara Iyer contends that the courts wrongly construed S.8(2), and failed to appreciate correctly the legal nature of the relationship between the parties.

(3.) S.8, in so far as it is material, reads: