Learned single judge pointed out that since it is a question of fact the same has to be decided on the evidence on record.
Though appellant claimed protection under the provisions of the Rent Control legislation the High Court discountenanced it on the premise that the document executed by the parties regarding the transaction is void under law.
The monthly rent of the building has been fixed at Rs.140/ .
In a second appeal filed by the respondent a single judge of the High Court of Kerala set aside the judgment of the District Court and remanded the first appeal to that companyrt by holding that the plaintiff was inducted into possession under a void lease and hence the companyrt should companysider whether, independent of this lease the defendant was in possession as a lessee from month to month.
The trial companyrt found that the appellant is number a tenant as the lease was void on account of number registration of the lease deed.
The successor of the party who was mainly responsible for number registering the instrument has number been benefited of it as the impugned judgment gave a decree for eviction of the person who was admittedly inducted into possession of the building by the former.
Thereafter rent of the building was paid by the appellant to the aforesaid Devaki.
In the first appeal filed by the appellant a District Judge held that in spite of number registration of the instrument there was a valid tenancy of the building and hence appellant companyld number be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act.
Sometime during this period ownership of the building happened to be allotted to a female member of the family Devaki as per a partition effected between its members.
The simple question number is whether appellant can claim protection as a tenant under Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1965 for short the Rent Act .
The trial companyrt decreed the suit by repelling the companytention of the appellant that the suit was number maintainable as he is protected from eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act.
After the remand the District Court entered upon a finding that despite the defect of number registration of the instrument the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence discussed above companyld clearly show that the parties intended to create a lease.
Facts, mostly undisputed, are the following The building which is the subject matter of this litigation is described as a shed which originally belonged to a family the senior member of which inducted the appellant in possession thereof as per a lease deed dated 4.1.1974 which was ostensibly meant for a period of five years.
Subsequently ownership of the building was transferred by Devaki to the respondent who filed the suit as plaintiff for the sake of companyvenience respondent can be referred to as the plaintiff .
Appellant paid rent of the building at the said rate till October 1974.
J U D G M E N T Thomas J. A dispute which companystantlycaused many litigations to prolong in the past whether a lease companyld be made by an unregistered instrument when such deed is companypulsorily registerable has once again been raised and that dispute has lengthened the longevity of this litigation through a chequered career.
