The plea of agricultural tenancy was rejected.
vs. Omana Amman N. Ors.
The finding rendered by the Land Tribunal was to the following effect The oral evidence adduced by respondent shows that the scheduled property and cinema theatre belongs to the respondents father and after his death the property passed to him.
One Sankara Kurup, owner of a piece of land admeasuring 27 cents erected a Theatre named Manorama Theatre thereon suit Property, for short .
vs. Omana Amman N. Ors.
The High Court found that there was numbermaterial to arrive at a finding that there was any landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.08.13 170347 IST Reason Civil Appeal No.6147 of 2019 Thankamony Amma Ors.
The management of the Theatre was being companyducted by his son in law named Kumara Kurup predecessor of the respondents herein .
The respondents carried the matter further by filing Rent Control Revision No.172 of 2017 in the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 the Act for short which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 presently under appeal.
So the respondents who are claiming under the said Kumara Kurup cant claim any more right over the scheduled property.
Civil Appeal No.6147 of 2019 Thankamony Amma Ors.
A8 were produced on record.
After the death of Sankara Kurup, a claim was raised by his son Viswanatha Kurup that he was entitled to the rights and interests in said Theatre by Signature Not Verified virtue of a Will executed by his father.
By its Civil Appeal No.6147 of 2019 Thankamony Amma Ors.
order dated 08.04.2014 the Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petition.
It is admitted by the respondents 5 to 7 that Narayana Kuruppu Viswanadha Kuruppu is the only legal heir of Sankara Kuruppu.
While rejecting the plea taken by Kumara Kurup, the Land Tribunal relied upon the accounts maintained by Sankara Kurup in his own hand writing which showed that Kumara Kurup was only a manager.
The proceedings were filed against Viswanatha Kurup predecessor of the appellants .
The companyclusion of the High Court was as under Having gone through the respective companytentions urged by the parties, it is rather clear that there is numbermaterial to arrive at a companyclusion that there was a landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
The respondents denied the title of the appellants.
Viswanatha Kurup was arrayed as respondent in the proceedings.
While dismissing the appeal, it was stated So Exbt.
Soon thereafter, proceedings were initiated by Kumara Kurup before the Land Tribunal Alappuzha being OA No.3233 of 1975 submitting, inter alia that he was a cultivating tenant and as such entitled to protection under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
The respondent being aggrieved, filed Rent Control Appeal No.17 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, which by its order dated 21.02.2017 dismissed said appeal.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in RCR No.172 of 2017.
The application preferred by Kumara Kurup was rejected by the Land Tribunal, Alappuzha on 17.03.1976.
Thirdly the said Kumara Kurup has accepted the said Viswanatha Kurup as his landlord.
