A KARUPPIAH Vs. B VAITHIANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1995 made in A.S. No. 249 of 1989 by the single Judge of the appellate forum of this Court allowing the above appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment and decree dated 5-4-1988 made in O.S. No. 4 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein praying for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant, who is the appellant before us.

(2.) The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court contending that on 7-4-1980 he purchased a building site and for the purpose of constructing the building, he entered into Ex. A.1 agreement deed dated 20-3-1985 with the appellant thereby agreeing, on certain terms and conditions, to construct a shop structure in an extent of 16' x 17' and to lease out the same in favour of the appellant to make use of the same for his business.

(3.) As per the terms and conditions agreed under Ex. A.1 by the respondent and appellant, an advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- had been paid by the appellant in favour of the respondent with the assistance of which the respondent should finish constructing the building in three months and hand over possession of the same with the appellant; that from out of the amount of Rupees 20,000/- paid in cash by the appellant, the respondent should return Rs. 10,000/- in three months; that from the remaining amount, retaining as advance, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- the rest of the amount of Rupees 5,000/- had to be adjusted from the monthly rents at the rate of Rs. 350/- per mensem for the first rental year from the time of occupation and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem for the subsequent rental year; that in case of default in the return of Rs. 10,000/- by the respondent in three months from the date of agreement, till the time of return of the same, the appellant need not pay any lease rent for the building to be occupied by him and that the appellant would have no right of subletting the building.