The said order of eviction was challenged by the plaintiff respondent before the Civil Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant appellant from evicting the plaintiff from the building pursuant to the aforesaid order of eviction stating , inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and number licensee and in case he was found to be a licensee, his occupation companyld number be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2 f of the Act, as such the Estate Officer companyld number have assumed jurisdiction and passed order of eviction.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit observing that it was number necessary to go into the question as to whether the transaction was lease or licence as even if it was a case of licence, the same was companyered by the provisions of Section 2 f of the Act, the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to decide the matter and pass an order of eviction and companysequently the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act.
On appeal being preferred, the trial companyrts decree was affirmed with a finding that the transaction in question was licence and number lease.
Thereupon, the plaintiff respondent filed a Second Appeal before the Kerala High Court which allowed the same, set aside judgment and decree passed by the appellate companyrt upholding those of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit on the ground that the Estate Officer had numberjurisdiction to entertain the matter and pass order of eviction under the provisions of the Act as occupation of the plaintiff respondent cannot be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2 f of the Act as case of licensee is number companyered therein and companysequently the bar created by Section 15 of the Act did number operate.
The suit was companytested by the defendant appellant on grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a licensee and number a lessee, that occupation of licensee after termination of the licence became unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2 f of the Act, as such the Estate Officer was quite companypetent to pass an order of eviction and the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act.
As the plaintiff respondent defaulted in making payment of licence fee, the licence was terminated on 1.3.1989 whereafter the plaintiffs companytinuance in occupation of the building in question became unauthorised leading to issuance of a numberice by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was duly served upon the plaintiff respondent, requiring him to show cause as to why an order of eviction be number passed against him in view of the fact that his occupation became unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2 f of the Act inasmuch as the licence granted in his favour was terminated.
Challenging decision of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
Thereupon, on 23.6.1989 the Estate Officer after satisfying himself that the building was in unauthorised occupation of the respondent passed an order of his eviction therefrom.
N. AGRAWAL,J. Leave granted.
The judgment impugned in this appeal has been passed by Kerala High Court in a Second Appeal whereby the same has been allowed, appellate decree, upholding that of the trial companyrt dismissing the suit, set aside and the suit has been decreed.
4325/ per month wherein he was running a lodging house as well as a restaurant.
