IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 RSA.No. 317 of 2011() --------------------- O.S.82/1997 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKARA A.S.79/09 OF FIRST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------- VISWAMBHARAN VADIDHYAN, AGED 62, S/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT DIVIYA BHAVANAM, AYOOR MURI, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- THE SREE NARAYANA TRUST, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.VELLAPALLIL NADESAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, RESIDING AT VELLAPALLI HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 544. BY ADV.A.N.RAJAN BABU ADV.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.317 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated 17th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.82/1997 on the file of Sub Court, Kottarakara is the appellant. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent, the Trust instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with mesne profits contending that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the appellant as per sale deed No.1171/92 of Kollam S.R.O and thereafter it was assigned in favour of the respondent and at the time of execution of the sale deed, appellant was occupying a shop room on the north-western portion of the ground floor of the building and he was operating an Ayurvedic dispensary and pursuant to the execution of the sale deed RSA 317/11 2 on 9/4/1992 appellant entered into an lease arrangement with the respondent agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and the period of lease was fixed as five years and in spite of the undertaking he did not surrender the building and therefore, respondent is entitled to the decree for recovery of possession with mesne profits sought for. 2. Appellant resisted the suit admitting the transfer but contending that he continuous to be the owner of plaint schedule building and there was no rental arrangement as alleged and in such circumstances, respondent is not entitled to the decree sought for. Learned Sub Judge on the evidence upheld the tenancy arrangement and granted a decree for recovery of possession with mesne profits from 9/9/1997 onwards. Appellant challenged the judgment before District Court, Kollam in RSA 317/11 3 A.S.79/2009. Learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings of the learned Sub Judge and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.Rajan Babu, learned counsel who has taken notice for the respondent were heard. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The title of the respondent to the plaint schedule building cannot be disputed in view of the sale deed executed. On the evidence, learned Sub Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge rightly found that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed, status of the appellant is only as a tenant as per the agreed rental RSA 317/11 4 arrangement. In view of the factual finding, appellant is bound to surrender vacant possession of the building after the expiry of the period of lease. In such circumstances, appeal is only to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant then sought six months time to surrender vacant possession of the building. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no objection for granting time. Appeal is dismissed. Still in the interest of justice appellant is granted six months time from today to surrender vacant possession of plaint schedule building. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.