LAWS(KER)-2019-9-131

APPAT VADAKKEKARA MAMMED Vs. ABDUL RAZAK

Decided On September 18, 2019
Appat Vadakkekara Mammed Appellant
V/S
ABDUL RAZAK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued and received a decree against the defendants for possession of the plaint schedule properties. The appeal against the decree was dismissed by the first appellate court. The second appeal was dismissed by this court under order XLI rule 11 of CPC. A review of the judgment of this court is sought by the first defendant.

(2.) Heard Smt.A.Meena, the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant/first defendant.

(3.) The suit was for eviction. Admittedly there was a lease in favour of one Avarankutty. Ext A1 was the lease deed. Defendants 1 and 2 are the heirs of Avarankutty. There was a dispute between the parties whether Ext A1 lease was an agricultural lease or a commercial lease. All the three courts concurrently found that the lease was a commercial lease to enable the lessee to construct a building. This court did not accept the contention of the appellant/first defendant that he was entitled to the benefit under Sec.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short the KLR Act) on the ground that he had no such claim. The contention of the appellant challenging the validity of the quit notice was also not accepted by this court since he had no such contention in the trial court.