The acceptance of rent after an eviction order does not, by itself, evidence a new tenancy. S.116 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.14 of the Rent Control Act, 1965 were applied to determine the creation of a new tenancy.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. His suit for declaration of tenancy right and injunction was allowed by the trial court, but dismissed by the appellate court.

2. The entire ground floor, first floor and eight rooms in the second floor of a three storied building was taken on rent by the appellant from the prior owner for running a hotel and lodge. After respondent purchased the budding he attorned to him and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Even before the purchase made by the respondent, there was huge arrears of rent. The sale deed authorised the respondent to collect the same. On the ground that there was arrears of rent, the respondent obtained an order for eviction against the appellant in R.C.O.P. 7 of 1967 from the Rent Control Court, Muvattupuzha. For about seven years the order was not executed and the respondent continued to receive whatever payments made by the appellant towards rent. When the respondent filed execution petition in 1975 the appellant resisted the same by contending that the order for eviction was discharged by payment of the arrears of rent and superseded by a fresh agreement to continue in possession as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. He also pleaded that as requested by the respondent he surrendered two rooms in the second floor for being let out to another tenant and from 1-1-1974 the rent was reduced to Rs. 350/- per month. His further claim was that he continued payment of Rs. 350/- and the respondent received the same. On the basis of the fresh arrangement and the fresh tenancy alleged by him the appellant pleaded that the eviction order cannot be executed. The execution court by original of Ext. Al order and the revisional court by original of Ext. A2 order rejected the contention observing that the remedy of the appellant is only by way of filing a fresh suit.

3. It was therefore that the appellant filed OS. 301 of 1976 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha for a declaration of his tenancy right on the basis of the new rent arrangement and for injunction restraining eviction on the basis of the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The claim was resisted by the respondent who denied the alleged lease arrangement. He contended that be only received whatever amounts were paid towards arrears and that he was only obliging the appellant by giving some time since the hotel business was being run in the building. On the evidence, the trial court accepted the case of the appellant and decreed the suit. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court and dismissed the suit.

4. On the factual finding of the appellate court negativing the new lease arrangement dated 1-1-1974, I do not think that there is any scope for interference in second appeal. The finding of the trial court in this respect was evidently perverse in relation to the evidence. The appellate court assessed the evidence properly and arrived at the conclusion that the new lease arrangement pleaded is only a myth. The rent agreed to be paid to the original landlord was Rs. 400/- per month. It is admitted that when the building was purchased by the respondent the appellant attorned to him and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Of course he added that there was an oral agreement to provide some additional amenities. The eviction petition was filed in 1967 alleging that the rent is Rs. 500/- per month and there was huge arrears. The order for eviction is dated 16-3-1968. Taking advantage of an omission in the order to specify the rate of rent and the exact arrears, the present contention is that the fresh arrangement entered into after the eviction order on payment of the entire arrears was for a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. It is said that thereafter on 1-1-1974 a fresh arrangement was entered into reducing the rent to Rs. 350/-when two rooms in the second floor were surrendered at the instance of the respondent in order to provide additional accom