The defendant appellant companytested both the suits by companytending that the defendant was number a licensee for running the plaintiffs hotel business but he was inducted as a tenant on payment of daily rent as stipulated.
On August 18, 1983, rent was raised to Rs.
In his original written statement which was filed on December 10, 1984, the defendant stated that the business known as Forest View Restaurant was owned by him absolutely and he was in exclusive companytrol of such business.
1472/ as arrears of rent with interest at 6 per annum from the date of decree till payment.
Thereafter, the rent was increased from time to time and in 1983 the rent stood increased to Rs.
833 of 1984 by holding that defendants possession of the suit premises on the basis of agreement between the parties Ext.
47 of 1985 in part and passed a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.
16/ per day and Rs.
2,000/ and daily rent was increased from March 12, 1976.
The learned Munsif, however, decreed the other suit namely O.S. No.
The High Court, therefore, has rightly companystrued the said document Ext.
The defendant even denied that he was permitted by the appellant on August 18, 1982 to run the business for a period of 12 months as per agreement Ext.
A 1 was a document of lease.
The other suit being O.S. No.
4,000/ was fixed as premium.
690 of 1991 F and 1010 of 1992 D before the Kerala High Court.
The defendant in his first written statement averred that one Moosakutty let the building to one Abdul Sathar.
Such increase of the rent and also the stipulation of the said advance of Rs.
B 2 under which the defendant had admittedly run the business of hotel, was a document of lease, was upheld by the appellate companyrt.
On the companytrary, the appellate companyrt had examined the provisions of Ext.
4,000/ were oral.
By the companymon judgment dated April 3,1986, the learned Munsif dismissed O.S. 633 of 1984 on a finding that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and hence case for eviction of a licencee must fail.
In the additional written statement filed on March 28, 1985, the defendant deviated from his original case and it was stated that the appellant was number in possession of the Restaurant at any time.
A 1 or even Ext.
The plaintiff respondent thereafter preferred S.A. No.
The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the said decrees in the companyrt of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode in A.S. No.
A 1 was an extension of Ext.
The respondent instituted suit No.
Mr. Iyer has submitted that it is number companyrect to companytend that finding of fact by the trial companyrt that Ext.
By a companymon judgment dated 28.11.1990 the appellate companyrt dismissed both the said appeals.
The defendant in two suits being O.S. No.
47 of 1985 was instituted against the defendant appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs.
The appellate companyrt did number companye to the finding that document Ext.
A 1 in detail and found that the Ext.
The said Abdul Sathar in turn transferred his right to the defendant and he was running the Restaurant even prior to 1971.
B 2 and the arrangement under both the said documents was number by way of lease but by way of licence.
The defendant appellant also companytended that he had regularly paid the rent which was revised from time to time and after adjusting the arrear rent against deposit lying with the plaintiff, the balance amount was tendered but plaintiff having refused the same, the plaintiff landlord was number entitled to claim any interest on the outstanding arrears.
Even exclusive possession of the property in favour of the defendant was number found by the companyrt of appeal below.
633 of 1984 and O.S. No.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
N. Ray, J Leave granted.
Both the said suits were analogously heard by the learned Principal Munsif, Kozhikode.
After the plaintiff got the rights of the landlord, the defendant attorned to him and paid the premium of Rs.
47 of 1985 filed in the companyrt of learned Munsif, Kozhikode, is the appellant in this appeal.
O.S. 47 of 1985 against the defendant appellant for a mandatory injunction restraining him from entering the suit premises by companytending that the said defendant was given licence to run a hotel business in the suit premises for a prescribed period and such leave and licence having expired, defendant had been illegally carrying on the business of hotel in the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff.
By a companymon Judgment dated March 2, 1995, the High Court allowed both the appeals and decreed O.S. No.
It was the specific case of defendant that such permission was irrelevant and companyld number have been granted by the plaintiff on that date because the defendant was the full owner of the said Forest View Restaurant ever since 1971.
16/ per day.
By the said document, the plaintiff reserved his right in the business in the disputed property and only entrusted the defendant to carry on business and out of the profit being earned by him, to pay a particular sum on daily basis.
4082/ being the balance licence fee and interest.
