1 by me, the executant No.
45 of 1962 in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry who dismissed the appeal.
The appellants preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
By his judgment dated August 27, 1965.
1 to expectant No.
1 and which are in the possession of executant No.
K.K. Mathew J., dismissed the writ petition.
Respondents 1 to 6 filed writ appeal No.
A 1 dated February 26, 1944 is reproduced below The Paramba and the upstair building described in the schedule belonging to jenm rights to the tarwad of executant No.
100/ per month and to recover possession from executant No.
13 of 1966 in the High Court and this writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench companysisting of the Chief Justice and Velu Pillai J., and the order of the Rent Control Court granting eviction as restored.
The lessee had to expend Rs.
1992 of 1964.
Thereupon respondents 1 to 6 filed writ petition No.
13 of 1966 setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the same High Court in O. P. No.
557 of 1940 of the Sub Registrars office, Cannanore dated 15th Kumbam 1115 companyresponding to 27th February, 1940 for taking the usufructs of the companyonut trees, jack trees, etc.,
20 of 1963 in the Court of District Judge, Tellicherry who by his judgment dated July 1, 1964 allowed the revision petition holding that Ex.
The relevant portion of the lease Ex.
100/ for the building.
1 has the right to recover the loss with balance of pattam and rent with interest at rupee one per Rs.
2 causes loss by cutting any trees or causes damage to the buildings or causes loss by dismantling executant No.
8 and 9 and husband of respondent No.
2 for taking only the usufructs from the companyonut trees, and jack trees etc.,
1922 of 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the kerala High Court.
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the lease Ex.
25/ out of the above amount for the repairs of the house and for maintenance of the companypound every year.
in the above mentioned paramba improvements including the upstairs building for rent and to companystruct buildings by the side of the road for the purpose of running business and is given on lease by executant No.
75/ for taking the usufruct and rent of Rs.
1 to 3 and respondent Nos.
2 as per the registered marupattam deed No.
A 1 represented a companyposite lease of the buildings and also of the trees and the provisions of Act 16 of 1959 were number applicable.
The lease deed dated February 26, 1944 was for a term of six years.
Respondent No.
The balance of Rs.
instalments of Rs.
The Munsiff held that the subletting had occurred and respondent No.
The respondent alleged that the appellants had sublet separate portions of the building.
1 was entitled to claim eviction.
in the paramba and the fixtures including the upstair building for rent are hereby taken on lease for a period of 6 years from you the executant No.
The lessee had to pay pattam of Rs.
8 to 10 for ordering them to surrender possession of the buildings alone but the lease embraced the buildings and the paramba companypound and that the petition to evict the evict the buildings alone on the strength of the lease is number maintainable.
The appellants thereupon filed Civil Revision Petition No.
150/ was to be paid in monthly.
12.50.
1, therefore, filed a petition, under Section 11 4 1 iii of the kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act Act 16 of 1959 against the appellants and respondent Nos.
1 to deceased K.K. Subba Rao father of appellants Nos.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated August 2, 1967 in Writ Appeal No.
A 1 is a companyposite lease in respect of the land and the building thereon or whether it companytains two independent transactions, one in respect of the building in question and the other for the remaining properties and the trees.
The property described in the schedule to the lease deed Ex.
A 1 was led by respondent No.
