IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 321 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.43/2003 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.255/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: A.R.MANIKANTAN, AGED 41, S/O.ARUMUGHAM CHETTIAR, 6 ROOMS LINE, NULLATHANNI ROAD, NEAR NIRMALA WOMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUNNAR P.O., K.D.H.VILLAGE DEVIKULAMA TALUK, DIST.IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: TATA TEA LTD., HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, AT MUNNAR, K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, REP. BY MR.PRATAP RAMDAS, DEPUTY MANAGER, SOUTH INDIA ESTATE, DEPARTMENT OF TATA TEA LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT MUNNAR AND PAH M/S.TATA TEA LTD., MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, KERALA. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 321 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT The defendant, who has lost his contentions both in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court, is the appellant. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant for declaration of title and recovery of possession alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff Tata Tea Limited is a public limited company incorporated in India as per the provisions of the Companies Act with its Registered Office at Calcutta and having its Regional Office at Munnar, K.D.H.Village; that the predecessor Company vide Deed No.381/77 transferred all its assets to M/s.Tata Finlay Ltd. and it became the owner in possession and enjoyment of the entire assets of the former K.D.H. Produce Company; that M/s.Tata Finlay Ltd. later changed its name to M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. and obtained a fresh certificate of incorporation on 28.2.1983 from the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal and thus, the RSA 321/08 2 present Company M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the entire assets of M/s.Tata Finlay Ltd. in K.D.H. Village; that M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. is principally a plantation company owning many estates in K.D.H. Village along with some other estates; that there are hundreds of buildings situated within the land owned and held by the plaintiff company; that many of them are allotted to the workers and employees of the company for their accommodation and few other buildings are licensed to outsiders as Quarters and also for business purposes receiving only nominal monthly licence fee; that the scheduled property is one of such line units; that the defendant executed licence agreement in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the scheduled property on 1.9.1995 agreeing to pay a monthly licence fee of Rs.75/-, accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement; that the period of licence agreement was up to 31.8.1996; that the defendant started occupying the premises RSA 321/08 3 based on the terms and conditions of the agreement; that on 25.6.1998 it is learnt that the defendant had made some unauthorised constructions attached to the licensed premises in the form of a shed; that thereupon, the plaintiff issued a notice to him on 25.6.1998 revoking permission granted to him to occupy the line unit and demanding him to surrender vacant possession of the line unit; that he did not surrender vacant possession of the line unit and now he is in possession of the property unauthorisedly and he is bound to hand over possession of the property to the plaintiff and hence the suit for declaration of title and ownership of the plaintiff over the scheduled property and for recovery of possession. 2. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff is only a licencee under the Government in respect of the lands in K.D.H.Village; that they hold the entire parcels of land in and around Munnar with a few exception and therefore, people have no option, except to depend RSA 321/08 4 on the plaintiff for accommodation; that the rent collected by the company for the line units which are very old and with minimum space requirement cannot be said to be nominal; that ever since the Government notified Munnar Town and its surroundings as Rent Control Area, the plaintiff began to get the deeds for granting accommodation in its buildings in the form of licence agreement; that accordingly, the plaintiff granted accommodation to the defendant in the scheduled building for his residence with his family in consideration of payment of regular monthly rent of Rs.75/-; that the plaintiff entered into an agreement knowing that the transaction is a lease; that the agreement executed on 1.9.1995 is not a licence, but it is a lease; that the scheduled building was put in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant for his residence; that his name is entered in the rent roll of the building and the plaintiff receives monthly rent in its rent account; that the defendant signed the agreement believing that it is RSA 321/08 5 a lease deed and with intention of creating a lease; that the plaintiff received rent from the defendant even after the expiry of the period fixed in the rent deed and the defendant is continuing in possession and enjoyment over the scheduled building as a statutory tenant; that it is incorrect to say that the defendant had made unauthorised constructions in the premises in the form of a shed; that the plaintiff received rent for one year in advance from the defendant on 3.7.1988 and after March 1999 also the defendant paid monthly rent regularly, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same; that the additional structure at the rear side of the tenanted premises has been used as a latrine; that in September 1997 the soil cutting of the rear side of the building collapsed so that the walls of latrine and rear side of the unit got damaged; that thereupon the officers of the plaintiff Company gave permission to the defendant to make construction at his own cost and made the construction at the supervision RSA 321/08 6 of the plaintiff and the Overseer; that it is incorrect to say that the defendant constructed a new shed or additional structures and that the defendant is a lessee under the plaintiff in respect of the scheduled building and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get the defendant evicted from the scheduled building. On the above contentions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. On the above pleadings, the trial court raised necessary issues for trial and considering the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, which consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A4 and B1 to B7 decreed the suit allowing recovery of the building to be had from the possession of the defendant. The appeal filed by the defendant as A.S.No.43/03 was also dismissed confirming the correctness of the decree and judgment of the trial court and hence this appeal by the aggrieved defendant. RSA 321/08 7 4. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that after coming into force of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act, 1971, the defendant Company is not entitled to possess lands which are not planted with tea and those are liable to be resumed from their possession and proceedings are initiated by the Revenue Board in that behalf; that the appellant is a person who will be entitled to get assignment of the building in his occupation under the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act,1971 and that those are substantial questions of law to be considered by this Court. 5. The argument advanced at the first blush appears to be attractive. However, it is seen that the Act came into force in 1971 and the appellant/ defendant was put in possession by the respondent/ plaintiff in 1995 and the period of licence is already over and the contention of the appellant/ defendant in the court below was only that he is a RSA 321/08 8 tenant under Act 2 of 1965 under the respondent/ plaintiff and not a licencee. It is also not in dispute that he was put in possession only in 1995 by the respondent Company. Hence, the contentions that are attempted to be urged formulating those to be the substantial questions of law are not matters arising for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal by this Court, Consequently, therefore, there is no question of law and much less, any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal. In the result, confirming the concurrent verdicts passed by the courts below, I dismiss this RSA in limine, refusing admission. 5th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv