As the appellants in the written statement, raised a claim of permanent tenancy based on Selection 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act the question was referred to a Land Tribunal as required under Section 125 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
B 9 dated 14 4 1956 and even that was surrendered subsequently as per the Ext.
First appellant is a firm which claims a right under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of the suit property when the first respondent plaintiff filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under certain Sections of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965.
The main reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court is that though there was an earlier lease prior to 1956 the same was surrendered by the ten ants as per Ext.
When the original lease was surrendered the tenants of that lease cannot claim right under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, according to the Division Bench of the High Court.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala set aside the decree of the two Courts below and allowed the Second Appeal and decreed the suit for eviction as per the impugned judgment.
Pursuant to the said direction first respondent filed the suit for eviction under Sections 11 3 and 11 4 i of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act.
The Rent Control Court felt that the companytention raised by the tenant claiming permanent tenancy requires to be companysidered in a regular civil suit.
A 2 dated 1 1 1962.
Subsequently, the original Civil Court dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent.
The Land Tribunal decided the question in favour of the appellant and sent the records back to the Civil Court.
B 9 number Ext.
The matter was taken up before the First Appellate Court at the instance of the first respondent and that Court companyfirmed the decision of the first Court and dismissed the appeal.
A 2 companyld have been used by the High Court as both of them were described as lease deeds for periods more than one year and they were unregistered documents and hence inadmissible evidence.
Then first respondent moved the High Court in Second Appeal.
Thereupon parties were directed to approach the Civil Court.
T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior Counsel arguing for the appellant companytended that neither Ext.
