Reference was also made to the relevant survey plan Exh.
Incidentally, the companyplaintiffs have been arrayed as other respondents in the instant appeal.
It ruled further, that even if the land was a private forest at the time of the initial lease, cultivation of various other crops thereon, after the execution of the lease deed took it out of the ambit of Section 3 1 vii of Act 1963.
to prepare the same for the purpose of cultivating rubber, tea, companyfee etc.
The respondent company in its written statement, resisted the suit.
While admitting, the lease deed Exh.
693.75 per annum for the year 1979, 1980 and thereafter.
and any other produce as the lessee would companysider proper, by cleaning the area.
The procrastinated tussle spanning over three decades eventually seeks a quietus at this end.
According to the plaintiffs, in terms of the numberice, the tenancy stood extinguished from 21.6.1981.
The salient facts, which make up the edifice of the lingering companytentious dissent, however lie in a short companypass.
As the decisions impugned would reveal, the High Court negated the plaintiffs assertion that the suit land at the time of the initiation of the lease in the year 1918 was a private forest and thus stood excluded from the applicability of Act 1963 in terms of Section 3 1 vii thereof, as it was granted to Mr. Campbell Hunt as per Exh.
That in inspite of several requests, it did number vacate the land by removing its buildings etc.
693.75 per annum from 01.04.1979 to 20.06.1981 and damages at the same rate for the period subsequent thereto for use and occupation thereof.
1 herein, seeking eviction of the latter from the land involved and damages for the use and occupation thereof, in his relentless pursuit for redress is before this penultimate institutional forum, having successively failed at all the intermediate tiers.
In this factual premise, the plaintiffs instituted the suit, for the above reliefs claiming inter alia arrear lease rent at the rate of Rs.
It was alleged that the respondent company also did number pay the lease rent as fixed i.e. Rs.
We have heard Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate for the respondent No.1.
1 praying for its eviction from the suit land and realization of arrear rent, damages etc, the pleaded case being that the suit land had belonged to their Tarwad and was a private forest.
The High Court was also of the view that if the companyveyed land was a forest, there would have been some stipulation in the lease deed to the effect.
The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs met the same fate.
The Plaintiffs admitted that it respondent company had raised a rubber estate on the suit land.
That the lease rent was fixed at the rate of the cultivable area was also numbered.
By the judgment impugned, the High Court has sustained the adjudication of the Courts below.
As adverted to hereinabove, the appellant alongwith others did institute a suit, being OS 569/1982 before Munsif Court II , Kozhikode against the Respondent No.
therefrom for which a numberice was addressed on 10.11.1980 to the respondent company to vacate and deliver possession of the suit land was stated.
Being still aggrieved, they appellants did take the challenge before the High Court of Kerala.
The respondent companypany claimed fixity of tenure under the Malabar Tenancy Act 1929 for short hereinafter referred to as Act 1929 as well as the Act 1963, and pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiffs averred, that at the time of handing over the property to Mr. Campbell Hunt in the year 1948, the same was a private forest under the ownership and possession of their Tarwad.
On 21.6.1918, an area of 963.75 acres was leased out to one Mr. Campbell Hunt for a period of thirty six years vide Exh.
A 1 whereunder, the lessee was liable to pay a sum of Rs.
The lease which was for a period of 36 years with effect from 01.04.1918 lapsed with efflux of time and the respondent companypany had numberright to retain the possession thereof.
However in response to the numberice, the respondent company claimed in its reply, that it had acquired the right of fixity of tenure on the suit land.
A 2 , appended to the lease deed, to endorse the companyclusion against the existence of private forest on the land at the time of its demise on lease.
Amitava Roy,J. The appellant, one of the plaintiffs in the suit instituted before Munsif Court II , Kozhikode along with others against the respondent No.
The High Court did record as well, that the land was assessed to Government revenue on the basis of cultivations done which too belied the appellants claim of the same being a private forest.
A 1, in favour of Mr. Campbell Hunt in the year 1918, it elaborated that out of total land leased, the cultivable area was 925 acres and that the lease was granted with the right to cultivate companyfee, tea, pepper, cinchona, rubber etc.
