T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON, G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR
GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
JOHN – Respondent
1. The short facts necessary For the disposal of this appeal by the defendant can be easily stated. The suit building of which only the southern room is in dispute belongs to the plaintiff-respondent. On 3-7-1970 the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement Ext. Al by which the defendant was allowed to use the southern room which faces the K. K. Road for his plastic business on a consideration of Rs. 550/-a month or 6 per cent of the total business turnover whichever was higher. The agreement was for a term of 3 years in the first instance and the parties were at liberty to extend it. Skipping the other clauses which have no relevancy, Clause.11 provided that if owing to any difference of opinion, the parties found it difficult to continue the arrangement it could be terminated by either party giving one month's notice.
When the arrangement ceased for any reason whatsoever, the defendant should not cause any interference to the possession and business of the plaintiff. The 12th and last clause stated that the legal possession and ownership of the building should be with the plaintiff during the subsistence of the agreement. The term of the agreement came to an e
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.