Life interest holder cannot confer absolute rights; post-1969 renewal creates a new tenancy outside protection; post-1969 leases are not protected under the Act, and death of the life holder ends the lease.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

These appeals raise a common question and being considered and disposed together.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

O.S.No.282/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Manjeri seeking a declaration that a lease executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the 1^st defendant company is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property originally belonged to his maternal grand uncle one William Nicholas, who executed a registered Will bearing No.9/1941 of S.R.O, Manjeri, as per which, the right title and interest over the property, came into the plaintiff's hands. In the said Will, the mother of the plaintiff, Mrs.Ruth Kamala Grace also known as Kamala Santwan was given a limited life interest over the property. The mother of the plaintiff filed O.P.No.3/1960 before the District Court, Kozhikode for a letter of administration and by order dated 09.07.1960, the same was granted. Later, the mother of the plaintiff executed an agreement of renewal indenture dated 08.08.2002 for a period of 20 years in favour of the 1^st defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. According to the the plaintiff, the mother had only limited 'life interest' over the property and therefore, was incompetent to renew the lease deed. The defendants entered appearance and contended that, by lease agreement dated 10.09.1951, M/s.Caltex (India) Ltd was granted a lease for 5 years. Thereafter, the period of lease was extended by another agreement dated 15.03.1954 revising the rent. Later, the testator died on 05.01.1959 and thereafter, the agreement was renewed by the mother of the plaintiff. The renewal agreement also mentions about the renewal of the lease in the year 1974 and therefore, since M/s.Caltex (India) Ltd was continuing in the plaint schedule property on the basis of a commercial lease, the successors in interest, namely the 1^st defendant, was entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 . On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The Trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether, the lease of plaint schedule property to the defendants was created in the year 1951 by the father of the plaintiff viz.,William Nicholas as contended by the defendants or whether it was made by the mother of the plaintiff viz., Ruth Kamala Grace as contended by the plaintiff?

2. Whether, the plaintiff's mother got any right to lease out the plaint schedule property or to renew the lease to the defendants?

3. Whether, the lease of the plaint schedule property is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff?

4. Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of plaint schedule property as prayed for?

5. Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get the profit of income as prayed for?

6. Reliefs and Costs?”

3. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court came into the conclusion that the mother of the plaintiff could not have executed a renewal lease for 2 cents. Therefore, the Trial Court held that since the original lease was in respect of 6.89 cents, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek recovery of eviction of the defendants from the entire plaint schedule property and the defendant entitled for the protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part by granting a decree in respect of 2 cents. The aforesaid finding was arrived on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff's mother had on