Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Haripad in O.S.Nos.446/2000 and 285/2000 followed by those of the Addl. District Court-I, Mavelikkara in A.S.Nos.29/2007 and 30/2007 respectively, the defendants in O.S.Nos.446/2000 and 285/2000 has come up in appeal.

2. O.S.No.285/2000 was filed as a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making additional constructions and encroachments into the remaining property of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the very same plaintiff filed O.S.No.446/2000 as a suit for eviction of the first defendant from the shop room and for realization of compensation at the rate of 500 per month for the unlawful use and occupation of the shop room.

3. The shop room in question is situated in one cent of property. According to the plaintiff, he purchased 38 cents of property which include the said one cent of property, through a sale deed executed by his parents in his favour in the year 1987. The said properties originally belonged to Bhargavi Amma, who sold the same to Krishna Pillai through Ext.A11. Bhargavi Amma got the properties by redeeming the mortgages through Exts.A12 and A13 release deeds of the year 1952. Krishna Pillai sold the said properties to the parents of the plaintiff through Ext.A1 sale deed, in the year 1972.

4. According to the plaintiff, the father of the first defendant was a dependent of the plaintiff's father. Plaintiff's father constructed a shop room near to the south western corner of the said 38 cents of property and permitted the first defendant to start a business there. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant. The first defendant started a small business in the shop room and subsequently his son also joined in the said business. According to the plaintiff, he or his father had never received any rent from the first defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequently in the absence of the parents of the plaintiff in the locality, the first defendant could manage to get the shop room assessed by the Panchayat for building tax in the name of the first defendant. Unauthorizedly and illegally the first defendant with the assistance of the 2nd defendant made preparations to extend the shop room to the other portions of the property of the plaintiff with a view to making encroachments into the property and consequently O.S.No.285/2005 was filed.

5. The defendants contended that the first defendant had obtained the lease of one cent of land from Bhargavi Amma in the year 1957 for commercial purpose, and he put up the scheduled shop room in the said property and continued to conduct business therein. It is also contended that he continued to pay rent of 4 per year to Bhargavi Amma and thereafter the rent was enhanced to 5 per year and the same was paid to the subsequent transferees also. The first defendant is claiming the protection of Section 106(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963(for short 'the KLR Act') since he had obtained the land on lease for commercial purpose and constructed the scheduled shop room in it prior to 1957, much prior to the appointed day of 20.05.1967.

6. When the injunction suit was stoutly opposed by the defendants with the aforesaid contentions, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.446/2000 seeking a decree for eviction and also for compensation as aforesaid. The first defendant opposed the said suit also on the very same grounds as aforesaid.

7. Both the suits were jointly tried by treating O.S.No.446/2000 as the main case. On the side of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B12 were marked. The Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1. The trial court after considering the evidence, decreed both the suits in terms of the plaint. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred A.S.No.29/2007 and 30/2007 before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court also