Judgment.-A.S. No. 126 of 1975 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 980 of 1966 and A.S. No. 774 of 1970 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No.5594of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant in both the matters is one and the same, he being the sole defendant in both the suits. The respondent in both the appeals is also one and the same person, being the plaintiff in the two suits, which were tried jointly. 2. The plaintiff (respondent) is no other than the father-in-law of the defendant (appellant). They entered into a registered lease agreement as per the original of Exhibit A-1, dated 9th November, 1959 under which the defendant became a lessee under the plaintiff of the building bearing Door No. 1-A, PonnappaChetti Lane, Triplicane, Madras, with certain machinery etc. connected with running an oil mill. The document describes the building in one schedule and under the heading schedule relating to machinery gives the details of the items of machinery etc., given possession of by the plaintiff to the defendant. According to the terms of the document, the defendant was to be a lessee for a period of five years from 9th November, 1959 to 8th November, 1964 and pay in all a monthly sum of Rs. 150 made up of Rs. 25 as rent for the building and Rs. 125 towards the hire charges of the machinery etc.

3. O.S.No. 980 of 1966 (out of which A.S. No. 126 of 1975 arises; is a suit in ejectment but it relates only to the ground floor of the building with the machinery etc. According to the plaintiff there was a separate oral lease agreement between the parties in respect of the first floor, the monthly rent payable for the said first floor being Rs. 150. On the basis of that and on the allegation that the defendant had committed wilful default in payment of rent (for the first floor; the plaintiff had successfully obtained an order of eviction in the Rent Control Court and that order has not only become final but has also been executed and the defendant has already been evicted from the first floor of the building. O.S.No. 5594 of 1967 (out of which A.S. No. 774 of 1970 arises) is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of only the first floor. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that upto 15th July, 1963, the defendant had paid the monthly rent of Rs. 150 for the first floor and thereafter defaulted to pay the same. The suit for arrears of rent came to be filed in 1967 and the plaintiff stated that he is restricting his claim for arrears of rent in respect of the first floor for a period of three years prior to the presentation of the plaint in O.S. No. 5594 of 1967.

4. The defendant inter alia contended that the original of Exhibit A-1 covered the entire building and that there was no question of any oral agreement for paying the monthly rent of Rs. 150 separately for the first floor. This suit had been decreed by the Court below on the sole ground that the decision of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the defendant from the first floor, incidentally finding that the monthly rent for the first floor was Rs. 150, is res judicata against the defendant now contending that no separate rent was payable in respect of the first floor. The lower Court did not even consider the terms of Exhibit A-1 in order to find out whether what was demised under that document was only the ground floor with the machinery as contended by the plaintiff or whether the entire building inclusive of the first floor had been demised, because, in its view, the decision of the Rent Controller is res judicata.

5. As for the other suit (O.S.No. 980 of 1966) which is one in ejectment of the ground-floor with the machinery therein, the defendant inter alia contended that the provisions of Act XVIII of 1960 apply to the lease in so far as it related to the building, that in respect of the machinery the suit is time-barred regarding certain items inasmuch as those items were claimed only by way of amendment, the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document