The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the first respondent is not entitled to claim the protection available under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The court also established the sufficiency of evidence for eviction under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Rent Control Act.

Mohammed, J.

The prime question involved in this appeal is whether the first respondent-tenant is entitled to protection under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the act). The first respondent claimed permanent tenancy in the suit filed by the appellant-landlord under S.24 and O. VII R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for eviction under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Rent Control act)- The eviction was claimed under Ss.11(3),11(4) (i) and (iii) of the Rent Control Act. The Land Tribunal to which the question of tenancy was referred under S.125(3) of the Act, found that the first respondent is entitled to protection under S.106 of the Act placing reliance on the lease deed dated 14.4.1956 produced before it (hereinafter referred to as'Ext. B9 ). The contention of the appellant is that the leasehold right under Ext. B9 was specifically surrendered and a fresh lease deed was executed on 1.1.1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ext. A2). Therefore, the question whether there is surrender of the leasehold right in favour of the appellant also arises for decision in this appeal.

The relevant facts involved in this appeal are summarised thus: The suit building and appurtenant land originally belonged to deceased father of the appellant. It was demised under Ext. B9 lease deed dated 14.4.1956 executed by him in favour of the first respondent for a period of 5 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The said lease was terminated and the property was surrendered on 1st January 1962. On the same day, the first respondent executed a fresh lease deed as per Ext. A2 in favour of the owner for a period upto 30th April 1966 agreeing to pay the rent at specified rate for different periods. The rent fixed for the period from 1.1.1962 to 30.4.1962 was at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month and thereafter there was increase in the rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month in every succeeding year. On expiry of the term of lease the first respondent had agreed to surrender possession; however, he continued to hold the possession even after 30.4.1966. While so, the owner of the leased premises died on 20.7.1974. As per the decree in O.S. No. 177/1973 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum the appellant, the daughter of the deceased landowner, became the owner of the suit property. Since the tenant had defaulted in payment of the rent from 1.5.1974 the appellant issued a notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act to him terminating the lease from 31.5.1976. The first respondent however refused to vacate the premises and therefore, a petition for eviction O.P. (BRC) No. 176 of 1976 was filed under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Rent Control Act. The first respondent resisted the application claiming permanent tenancy alleging that the building was constructed by him and the timber business in the leased building was being carried on by the firm called M/s. K.C. Mathew and Son (second respondent). In view of this claim, the Rent Control Court rejected the application for eviction. In the aforesaid background, the present suit O.S.113/ 77 was filed for eviction of respondents from the plaint schedule building and appurtenant land with arrears of rent under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(1) and (iii) of the Rent Control Act. The suit was resisted by the first respondent by denying title of the appellant and also on the ground that he is entitled to get protection under S.106 of the Act. In view of this claim of permanent tenancy, the question was referred to the Land Tribunal, Alleppey under S.125(3) of the Act. The Land Tribunal numbered the reference as O.A. No. 1175 of 1978 and conducted the enquiry. The Tribunal however placed reliance on the recitals contained in paragraph 2 of Ext. B9 and found that the building was constructed by the first respondent at his own cost using some articles belonging to the appellant. It further found that the building was constructed prior to 30.5.1967. Th