The trial Court accepted the preliminary objection of the appellant and dismissed the suit.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 17 2 1969 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No.
4500/ per annum.
The respondent filed cross objections.
The trial Court on remand decreed the suit on 25 October, 1966.
51,030/ for other items of damages.
to apply the law retrospectively in respect of pending suits, appeals, applications, decree where dispossession had number been ef fected.
Clause 4 of the lease provided that if the rent would be in arrears and unpaid for 30 days after the same would become due it would be lawful for the lessor respondent to forfeit the lease numberwithstanding the fact that the term had number expired.
By a lease dated 7 October, 1950, the.
The property measuring 550.37 acres companysisted of 279.86 acres of planted area and the rest was unplanted area.
The respondant by numberice dated 5 March, 1959 called upon the appellant to quit, vacate and deliver to the respondent vacant possession of the property.
The respondent ob tained a decree for eviction with arrears of rent and dam ages amounting to Rs.
51,030/ as damages under other heads.
The High Court on appeal remanded the case tO the Subor dinate Judge for fresh trial.
The respondent pleaded that the tenancy 1029 is companyered by exception in section 2 1 of the Malabar Tenancy Act VII of 1954.
The respondents case is that since 1953 the appellant failed and neglected to pay rent fixed under the lease.
The rent was payable in advance on 1 January of each calendar year.
The appellant filed an appeal.
It is said by the appellant that the relevant date .for the application of these sub sections was 1 Janu ary 1970 on which, date the 1969 Amendment Act came into force.
The defendant claimed possession of the property known as the Beenachi Estate together with movable, a declaration that the lease had determined and claimed arrears of rent, mesne profits a sum of Rs.
At the trial the appellant raised the plea that the tenancy is governed by the Malabar Tenancy Act, and, there fore, the suit is barred by Act 1 of 1957.
1,00,000/ for certain items and a further sum of Rs.
T. Desai, S. Krishan Iyer and A.G. Puddisery, for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, K.P.K. Menon, I. N. Shroff and R.P. Kapoor, for the Respondent.
The appellant was held by the trial Court to be disentitled to resist the prayer for eviction in the suit because his holding was a plantation exceeding 30 acres in extent as provided in section 3 1 vii of the 1964 Act.
The numberice was companysequent upon the wilful default of the appellant to pay rent and companysequent on the several breaches of companyenants as alleged in the numberice.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by certificate from the judg ment dated 17 February, 1969 of the High Court of Kerala.
respondent leased out to the appellant the plantations together with Bungalow, quarters of what is described as Beenachi Estate.
1,00,000/ to Rs.
The rent for the second period of six years was fixed at Rs.
The respondent filed this suit against the appellant for recovery of property with arrears of rent and mesne profits and damages for waste.
The rent for the first six years was fixed at Rs.
493 of 1966.
The respondent filed the suit on 5 February, 1960.
2,20,394/ as damages for waste.
The lease was for a period of 12 years with effect from 1 Janu ary, 1950.
High Court on 17 February, 1969.
1343 of 1969.
The lease provided that the respondent lessor would re enter the premises in that event and the lease would cease and determine.
3600/ per annum.
