SARAMMA GEORGE Vs. AMMINI MAMMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional defendants 3 and 6 are the appellants. The legal representatives of the original plaintiff, additional defendants 4 to 6 and 7 to 11 are the respondents.

(2.) The deceased plaintiff Aliyamma Thomas filed a suit O.S.No.54 of 1971 for recovery of item Nos. 1 and 2 after the removal of the shed and the lean - to in item No.1 and 2 also for injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction. The plaint was amended thereafter for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.35/- per month. Plaint item No.1 is a piece of. land measuring 47 ft. x 42 ft. with a workshop. Plaint item No.2 is 30 ft x 25 ft with a lean - to to the shed located in item No.1. Item No.3 is a vacant site measuring 30 ft. x 30 ft. lying in front of item Nos.1 and 2 for the use of ingress and egress. No relief is sought for item No.3. The plaintiff with the above averments further added in the plaint as follows : On 1/1/1963 in the plaint item No.1 the defendants were allowed to put up a motor workshop therein on payment of a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. Ext. P1 is the agreement. As per Ext. P1 agreement, the defendants put up a shed and conducting the motor workshop. In 1965 the defendants were allowed to put up a 'Chayipu' in item No. 2 to he used free of rent. Immediately, on the filing of the suit in the year 1971, the defendants demolished the temporary chayipu in item No.2 and put up a brick and cement construction. Ext. P1 in fact, is a licence. It is not a lease. A notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants to vacate the premises. The defendants did not agree for it. Therefore the suit was filed.

(3.) The above averments of the plaintiff were opposed by the defendants in their written statement that Ext. P1 is a lease for commercial purposes and therefore they cannot be evicted under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.