K. RAMACHANDRAN CHETTIAR Vs. G. LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .S. No. 126 of 1975 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 980 of 1966 and A.S. No. 774 of 1970 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 5594 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant in both the matters is one and the same, he being the solo defendant in both the suits. The respondent in both the appeals is also one and the same person, being the plaintiff in the two suits, which were tried jointly.

(2.) THE plaintiff (respondent) is no other than the father -in -law of the defendant (appellant). They entered into a registered lease agreement as per the original of Exhibit A -1, dated 9th November, 1959 under which the defendant became a lessee under the plaintiff of the building bearing Door No. 1 -A, Ponnappa. Chetti Lane, Triplicate, Madras, with running an oil mill. The document describes the building in one schedule and. under the heading schedule relating to 1 machinery gives the details of the items 1 of machinery etc., given possession of by the plaintiff to the defendant. According to the terms of the document, the defendant was to be a lessee for a period of five years from 9th November, 1959 to 8th November, 1964 and pay in all a monthly sum of Rs. 150 made up of Rs. 25 as rent for the building and Rs. 125 towards the hire charges of the machinery etc.

(3.) THE defendant inter alia contended that the original of Exhibit A -1 covered the entire building and that there was no question of any oral agreement for paying the monthly rent of Rs. 150 separately for the first floor. This suit had been decreed by the Court below on the sole ground that the decision of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the defendant from the first floor, incidentally finding that the monthly rent for the first floor was Rs. 150, is res judicata against the defendant now contending that no separate rent was payable in respect of the first floor. The lower Court did not even consider the terms of Exhibit A -1 in order to find out whether what was demised under that document was only the ground floor with the machinery as contended by the plaintiff or whether the entire building inclusive of the first floor had been demised, because, in its view, the decision of the Rent Controller Is res judicata.