OMANA ALIAS PARUKUTTY AMMA Vs. RAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, whose suit for eviction has been ultimately dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge of Trichur, is the appellant before me.

(2.) THE suit was for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule properties with arrears of rent and also future rent on the basis of shdp-¼m-« -io«p dated 13-11- 1113, Ext. A in these proceedings. The plaintiff claimed eviction and also contended that the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act VIII/118 has no application and that in any event, she is entitled to claim eviction, because the transaction is one exempted under S. 3 (c) of the said Act. The plaintiff claimed eviction also on an alternative basis namely, based upon S. 8 (b) of the said Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, i. e. on the ground that the tenant has intentionally and willfully committed acts of waste as are calculated to impair materially and permanently the value or utility of the holding. On this alternative basis, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant is not entitled to the protection even if such protection is given under Cochin Act VIII of 1118. In the same suit, apart from relying upon wilful waste as a ground for eviction, the plaintiff claimed as against the defendant, certain amounts as damages for loss caused to the plaintiff by the defendant in cutting and appropriating certain trees standing on the property.

(3.) REGARDING the claim for damages, which had also been specifically made by the plaintiff as against the defendants, the latter contended that they have not committed any waste on the property by cutting the trees or otherwise. They set up a case that there was a cyclone and due to the cyclone, some of the trees fell and those trees were sold and the proceeds appropriated by the plaintiff herself through her agent and they contested the claim of the plaintiff to get any decree for damages.