The appellant has companytested the suit on the ground that he is the lessee of the suit premises he paid the rent under Exh.
The trial companyrt held that the appellant acquired numberright which companyld be protected either under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act or under the Act and thus decreed the suit of the respondents on February 9, 1976.
From them the appellant took it on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.
The matter was carried in Second Appeal No.
On March 24, 1975 respondents filed the suit out of which this appeal arises on the strength of title, for recovery of possession of the suit property and past and future mesne profits on the ground that the lease was void and they are entitled to get back the possession thereof.
Thereafter, the suit premises was purchased by the first respondent from respondents 2 to 6 on December 2, 1974.
However, numberplea was taken that independent of the void lease, by companyduct of the parties in paying and accepting the rent every month till October 1974, a month to month tenancy came into existence.
The facts, necessary to appreciate the question, may be set out briefly.
The lease itself was void being in companytravention of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and the lease deed was inadmissible in evidence being in companytravention of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.
B 3 till October, 1974 and as such he is entitled to the protection of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 for short the Act .
B 3, was executed on January 14, 1974 but it was, however, number registered.
803 of 1981 before the High Court.
The parties will be referred to as the appellant and respondents.
A lease deed, Exh.
140/ for a period of five years.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. Leave is granted.
The suit property was allotted to one Raman Namboodiri and others proforma respondents 2 to 6 herein in a family partition in the year 1974.
835 of 1988 G dated September 4, 1997.
