SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 425

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. T. K. THOMMEN AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
P. M. C. Kunhiraman Nair, Appellant
Versus
C. R. Naganatha lyer and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2460 (N) of 1977
Decided on 15-5-1992.
Advocates appeared
Mr. T. R. G. Wariyar, Sr. Advocate, Smt. Shanta Vasundevan and Mr. P. K. Manohar, Advocates with for Appellant; Mr. S. Balakridhna and Mr. G. Srinivasan, Advocates, for Respondents.
#S.A. No. 1206 of 1976, D/- 10-3-1977 (Kerala).

Advocates:
C.S.S.RAO, P.K.MANOHARAN, S.BALAKRISHNAN, SHANTA VASUDEVAN, T.R.G.VARIYAR

Headnote:

Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act – Transfer of Property Act, 1908 – Section 111 – Recovery of property – Suit Property – Claim Possession of Land – Land and buildings belong in Jenm to Vettath Tarwad who leased out the same in or respondent – Late C. N. Rama Iyer, father of respondents and husband of respondent started a flour mill known as Sivaram Mills on said premises in and for that purpose he installed an engine and necessary plant and machinery and also made some further constructions over land. C. N. Rama lyer died and after his death respondents entered into an agreement with appellant whereunder appellant advanced to respondents and respondent agreed to entrust appellant with management of mill for a period of one year from on a monthly payment out of which be appropriated every month towards advance given – Held, Deed of Assignment Iyer has empowered appellant to enter Into rental agreements with the Jenmi of the building by paying rent directly to effect alienation shows had impliedly surrendered his leasehold rights by agreeing that appellant could enter into rental agreements with landlord by paying rent directly – Case of appellant is that ever since execution of Deed of Assignment rent is being paid by him to landlord directly – It is not the case of plaintiffs-respondents that they had paid rent for premises to landlord we are of opinion that plaintiffs-respondents by executing agreement had impliedly surrendered their leasehold rights in suit property in and filing of present suit they had no subsisting leasehold interest in suit for recovery of possession of suit property filed by them on basis that plaintiffs-respondents are lessees thereof was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed –Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 10, 1977 of the High Court of Kerala. It arises out of a suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 against the appellant and respondent No. 7 for redemption and recovery of possession of property consisting of 25 cents of land in Valiyaveetuparamba in Nagaram Amson, District Kozhikode, and the buildings and the machinery of the Flour Mill standing on the said land.

2. The land and the buildings belong in Jenm to the Vettath Tarwad who leased out the same in or about 1939 to Sivarma Iyer, respondent No. 2 on a rent of Rs. 40/ - per mensem. Late C. N. Rama Iyer, father of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and husband of respondent No. 6 started a flour mill known as Sivaram Mills on the said premises in or about 1940 and for that purpose, he installed an engine and necessary plant and machinery and also made some further constructions over the land. C. N. Rama lyer died on May 21, 1953 and after his death, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 entered into an agreement with the appellant on February 7, 1954 whereunder the appellant advanced Rupees 4,500/- to respondents Nos.1 to 5 and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 agreed to entrust the appellant with the management of the mill for a period of one year from March 5, 1954 on a monthly payment of Rs. 300/- out of which Rs. 125/- to be appropriated every month towards the advance given. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 could not entrust the management of Mill to the appellant on or before March 5, 1954 and they could do so only in the middle of April, 1954 and on April 13, 1954, a fresh agreement (Ex. B2) modifying the terms of the previous agreement was entered into between respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the appellant. Under the said agreement dated April 13, 1954 a further .Sum of Rs. 1,900/- (in addition to the sum of Rs. 4,500/ -) was advanced by the appellant to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and it was agreed by respondents 1 to 5 that the total sum of Rs. 6,400/- which had been advanced by the appellant to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 will not bear any interest from the date of the said agreement and that the appellant shall run the mill for one year and after the stipulated period, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 would get the possession of the mill back from the appellant. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs. 40/- is the rent of the building where the mill is situate and current charges for each month of the electric lights of the mill should be paid by the appellant to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and a sum of Rs. 100/- per month would be paid by the appellant as rent for the mill, out of which a sum of Rs. 50/- shall be adjusted by the appellant towards Rs. 6,400/- paid in advance and the balance amount of Rs. 50/- be paid to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 every month. It was also agreed that on the expiry of the period of one year, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 would get back the possession of the mill after paying the balance amount of Rs. 5,800/ -to the appellant. Before the expiry of the period of one year fixed under the agreement dated April 13, 1954, the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 to 5 entered into an agreement (Ex. B3) dated March 22, 1955 with one T. M. Rama Iyer (who happened to be the father-in-law of respondent No. 2). In the said agreement, reference has been made to the agreement dated April 13, 1954 with the appellant and it was stated that a sum of Rs. 5,600/ - is to be paid as balance amount to the appellant after adjusting the sum of Rs. 800/ - which has already been paid to him. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 5,072/ - and annas 2 was payable to T. M. Rama lyer towards the arrears of rent for the building belonging to the said T. M. Rama lyer, which has been taken on rent by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and that since there was difficulty for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to clear the said liability, they have decided to assign the Company (named Sivaram Mills and Co.) to T. M. Rama Iyer for a consideration of Rs. 10,672/- and annas 2, out of



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top