The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act are only available to a lessee who has constructed buildings for commercial or industrial purpose on land leased for such purpose, and the lease must be of land alone, not land and buildings.

K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.

1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit O. S.223/80 was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. Plaint schedule property comprising of an area of 45 cents with the buildings thereon belong to plaintiff. The land together with buildings were taken on lease by the first defendant and K. C. Pazhanimala, father of defendants 2 and 3 as per a registered lease deed dated 23-1-1967. The lease was taken for purpose of running a petrol bunk and to carry on other commercial activities for a period of 12 years. The period ended on 31-12-1978. The lease deed was executed in renewal of earlier lease deed of the year 1950 which itself was a renewal of a deed of 1945. Even in 1945 there were buildings in the property. On the death of Pazhanimala defendants 2 and 3 are in occupation along with the first defendant. A partnership was formed by defendants 1 to 3 under the name and style M/s. K. C. P., K.C.V. and Company. Fourth defendant is that firm. Since the defendants defaulted payment of rent plaintiff had to file a suit as O.S. 11/72. A decree was obtained and the entire decree amount was realised. No rent was paid thereafter. The tenancy was terminated and a petition was filed before the Rent Control Court, Palghat which was dismissed for the reason that it was premature, the term of the lease expiring only on 23-1-1978. A Petition was thereafter filed for eviction on the ground of rent arrears and bona fide need. Defendants claimed to be lessees entitled to fixity of tenure and on that preliminary point the petition was dismissed. That necessitated the suit.

2. In the joint written statement filed by defendants they contended that defendants have permanent right of tenancy, that they put up several, buildings, that these buildings were constructed in connection with the petrol bunk business and that they are entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act.

3. The dispute of tenancy was referred to Land Tribunal, Palghat. The Tribunal held that the lease was of land and building and the benefits of S.106 are not available to fee defendants. Accepting that finding the court below decreed the suit Aggrieved by that decision defendants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard counsel on both sides.

5. From the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants the following points arise for consideration:

i. Whether appellants are entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act.

ii. Whether they are liable to pay arrears of rent?

iii. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

iv. Whether appellants are entitled to get value of Improvements?

v. Whether the notice to quit is proper and valid?

6. Point No. I: The suit was resisted mainly on the plea of tenancy created for an industrial and commercial purpose. According to the appellants the lease is of land for commercial and industrial purpose. Buildings had been put up by them for such purpose, S.106 directly applies and they are not liable to be evicted, argues counsel. S.106 sub clause (1) reads thus:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any order or decree of court, where on any land leased for commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purpose before the 20th May, 1967, be shall not be liable to be evicted from such land, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy, and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years."

7. In order to attract the section the lease granted must be of land and that too for commercial or industrial purpose. Only a lessee who has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purpose before 20th of May, 1967 cats claim the benefits conferred under that section. Such a lessee is not liable to be evicted from such land but would be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy which is liable to be varied