Case: Nagaraja Rao Vs. C.K. Mamad Keyi

2. The property described in the Schedule to thewas let by respondent No. 1 to deceased K. K. Subba Rao, father of appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and husband of respondent No. 10. Thedated February 26, 1944, was for a term of six years. The lessee had to pay Pattam of Rs. 75/for taking the usufruct and rent of Rs. 100/for the building. The lessee had to expend Rs. 25/out of the above amount for the repairs of the house and for maintenance of the compound every year. The balance of Rs. 150/was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 12.50. The respondent alleged that the appellants had sublet separate portions of the building. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a petition under Section 11(4)(1)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1959, Act 16 of 1959, against the appellants and respondent Nos. 8 to 10 for ordering them to surrender possession of the buildings alone by the lease embraced the buildings and the Paramba (compound) and that the petition to evict the respondents from the buildings alone on the strength of the lease is not maintainable. The Munsiff held that thehad occurred and respondent No. 1 was entitled to claim eviction. The appellants preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 1962 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry, who dismissed the appeal. The appellants thereupon filed Civil Revision Petition No. 20 of 1963 in the Court of District Judge, Tellicherry, who by his judgment, dated July 1, 1964, allowed the revision petition holding that Ex.represented a composite lease of the buildings and also of the trees and the provisions of Act 16 of 1959 were not applicable. Thereupon respondents 1 to 6 filed writ petition No. 1922 of 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Kerala High Court. By his judgment, dated August 27, 1965. K. K. Mathew, J., dismissed the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 6 filed writ appeal No. 13 of 1966 in the High Court and this writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Velu Pillai, J. and the Order of the Rent Control granting eviction was restored.

Reasoning:
5. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the terms embodied in they show that it contains only one single transaction in respect of the Paramba and the buildings namely a composite leas which fell outside the ambit of the Act.We are unable to accept this argument. In the opinion of this Court the lease consists of two separate transactions, one for the building and the other for the trees. The rent of Rs. 75/per year is fixed for taking the usufruct from the trees and Rs. 100/per year as rent for the building. The building is also described in the Schedule to theand is identifiable, apart from the compound in which the trees are located. There is, therefore, separate identity of the land and the buildings. It is not possible to accept the argument on behalf of the appellants that the lease is a composite transaction of building and the trees which cannot be separated. It is true that there a provision in the lease that a sum of Rs. 25/may be spent by the lessee for repair of the buildings and for tilling the Paramba. There is also another provision in the lease that a charge for arrears of rent of the building and also of the Paramba is created on theinterest in the buildings. But in our opinion these provisions cannot be construed as making the lease a composite and indivisible transaction for both the buildings and the Paramba.