IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 412 of 2004() --------------------- AS.145/2001 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.616/1999 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT: (PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------------- DARUSSALAM ARABIC COLLEGE COMMITTEE (REGD.),NANDI,KADALUR.P.O.,VIA KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, A.V.ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIAR,S/O.ABDULLA, NANDI,KADALUR.P.O.,VIA KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: (DEFENDANT - APPELLANT) -------------------------------------------------- M/S.S.A.BAHASAN ATTAKOYA, A FIRM REP.BY ITS PARTNER, S.A.SYED ABDUL KADER BAFAKY, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN BAFAKY, HILAL MANZIL,MAIN ROAD, KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.412 OF 2004 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in a suit for eviction is the appellant. Plaintiff is a society, which is stated to be conducting a Madrassa, Arabic College, Orphanage etc. Suit was filed to evict the defendant in occupation of one of the buildings of the plaintiff as a lessee. Terminating the lease arrangement, the suit was laid for surrender of the vacant possession of the building with arrears of rent due from the defendant/tenant. Though the defendant resisted the eviction setting forth various contentions including insulation from eviction by the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1965, the trial court, after appreciating the materials tendered, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the defendant, the lower appellate court interfered with the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff holding that the claim of the plaintiff that it is entitled to exemption from the purview of Act 2 of 1965 by virtue of a notification issued under R.S.A.NO.412/2004 2 Section 25 of that Act, as approved by the trial court, was not correct. In that view of the matter, and further noticing that the entire arrears of rent due had been remitted by the defendant during the pendency of the proceedings reversing the decree passed by the trial court was reversed, and the plaintiff was non-suited. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 2. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, adverting to paragraph 4 of the written statement filed by the defendant contended that there is specific admission even by the defendant that the plaintiff is conducting a Madrassa, orphanage etc., which according to the learned counsel, is itself sufficient to substantiate the claim raised that the plaintiff society is entitled to the exemption provided by notification issued by the Government under Section 25 of the Act, Act 2 of 1965. A copy of S.R.O.No.769/96 dated 30.10.1996 issued by the Government R.S.A.NO.412/2004 3 was also handed over to me by the learned counsel to show that such notification is applicable in the case of the plaintiff society as well, and so much so, the lower appellate court was not at all justified in interfering with the decree passed by the trial court and reversing the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contention in the written statement that the plaintiff is carrying on activities which included the conducting of a Madrassa, orphanage etc. apart from running a college, by itself, would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to claim that it too is covered by the notification referred to. The notification provides exemption to certain categories which are mainly carrying on religious and charitable activities, and that alone, and it applies only to the categories referred to in the notification and not to a registered society, is the submission of the learned counsel. Perusing the notification, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. It is stated in the notification that the exemption is applicable to the “buildings of all Dioceses, Arch-dioceses, Monasteries, Convents, Wakfs and R.S.A.NO.412/2004 4 Madrassas in the State”. Admittedly, the plaintiff in the present case is a registered society, and the main activity carried by it, as seen from its address is running of a college. Perhaps it may be carrying other activities like the running of a madrassa, mosque etc. In relation to any building coming under the Madrassa or mosque, it may be open to the society to claim the benefit as covered under S.R.O.No.769/96 dated 30.10.1996. That question does not arise in the present case as the plaintiff has no case that the building occupied by the tenant is in the property of a mosque or madrassa maintained by it. Such being the fact situation, I find the lower appellate court was fully justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the exemption from the provision of Act 2 of 1965, in respect to the building occupied by the respondent/defendant. There is no merit in the appeal, and hence, it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.S.A.NO.412/2004 5