A tenant's right to compensation for improvements made cannot be negated by lease agreement terms as per statutory provisions.

This Original petition is filed by the petitioner for challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court, Manjeri for having dismissed the application (I.A.No.4/2024) filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in C.S.No.10/2024 under order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.

2. Heard the arguments of the both counsels.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction from the scheduled premises based upon a lease agreement said to be executed between them on 21.01.2004 for a period of 20 years for running a petrol bunk by the petitioner. After filing the suit, the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement along with the counterclaim for claiming 35 lakhs as compensation on the ground that he has made improvements in the premises, including erecting a compound wall and a building and also leveling the site.

4. During the pendency, the petitioner, being the defendant, also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointing the commissioner to evaluate the improvement made by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed, hence the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is running the petrol bunk now, though the lease expired in 2024 in January and the suit came to be filed, but the petitioner spent close to 1 crore rupees for improvement of the premises for running the business, and therefore he is entitled to realise 35 lakhs towards compensation for the depreciation of the building and also the improvement made in the land. Therefore, in order to prove his contention, it is necessary to appoint the Advocate Commissioner with a registered engineer for inspecting the property for evaluating the value of the improvements made by the petitioner. But the trial court dismissed the application only on the ground that, as per clause (g) of the agreement, the petitioner is required to return the land by removing the erections or buildings constructed there, which is not correct, and in support of the contentions he has relied upon in respect of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvement Act 1958, whereas as per the law the petitioner is entitled to the compensation for the improvements made to the premises.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the court and also contended that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to hand over the vacant position by removing the construction or erecting any machinery in the premises. Therefore, there is no need to appoint any commissioner, and in the name of appointing any commissioner, the petitioner is trying to delay the process of the court, hence prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. 8. The point that arises for my consideration are follows:-

1. Whether the order under challenging is call for any interference?

9. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the respondent filed the suit for evicting the petitioner from the premises on expiry of 20 years of lease, which expired on

20.01.2024. The petitioner, being a tenant, filed a written statement with a counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6 (a) of C.P.C., claiming 35 lakhs as compensation mainly on the ground that he has improved the property by constructing a building, erecting the wall, and leveling the low-lying land to the ground level by spending almost 1 crore. But after the depreciation, he has evaluated 35 lakhs required for compensation. In view of clauses (f) and (g) of the alleged lease agreement entered between the parties, clause (g) clearly reveals that after expiry of the lease, the lessee shall surrender the vacant possession of the said premises, and any installation, erection, alteration, or modification made upon the property