IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 SA.No. 105 of 2000(D) --------------------------- AS.133/1996 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.852/1994 of III ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------ JACOB, S/O. CHIRAMMEL PERINGOTTUKARAKKARAN MANI, CHELAKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, P.O.KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.T.K.CHINNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. MARMARI SLEEHA CHURCH, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ANTONY,S/O. REV.FR.KAKKAPPADAN PYLOTH,VICAR, P.O. KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. GEORGE, TRUSTEE, S/O.IMMATTY ITTIACHAN, ST.GEORGE STREET, KURIACHIRA VILLAGE, P.O. KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. JOY, TRUSTEE, S/O.CHITTILAPPILLY RAPPAI, KURIACHIRA DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, P.O.KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN SRI.PAUL KURIAKOSE THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.262/2000 IN S.A. NO.105/2000 DISMISSED 23/06/2011 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- S.A.No. 105 of 2000 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The tenant who was directed to vacate the premises with liability to pay the arrears of rent, has come up before this Court. 2. The plaintiff church had let out the room to defendant as per a rent agreement for a period of six months from 01.10.1969 on a monthly rent of Rs.70/-. Subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.80/- per month. The plaintiff had sent Ext.A2 notice on 17.06.1993 to the defendant directing him to pay arrears of rent and to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule room. But the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and surrendered vacant possession of the room. Hence, the suit was laid. 3. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the Act 2 of 1965 is applicable to the area and only by taking recourse to the provisions of the said Act he can be evicted. It is also contended that he has not been given a proper and sufficient S.A.No. 105 of 2000 2 notice to quit as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On these grounds, he prayed for a dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the plaintiff. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defendant. 5. The trial court found that Act 2 of 1965 is not applicable since the building owned by the plaintiff stands exempted under Section 25 of Act 2 of 1965. It was also found that the suit notice was proper and accordingly decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. Disappointed defendant carried the matter in appeal as A.S.No.133/1996 before the District Court, Thrissur. The same contentions were reiterated before that court also, which did not found in favour with the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the decree of the trial court was confirmed. S.A.No. 105 of 2000 3 7. Notice is seen issued on the following substantial questions of law: a. In view of the common judgment in O.P.No. 20005/1998 and other Original Petitions of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court declaring the notification G.O.(MS)No.14/92/HSG dated 07.03.1992 issued under Section 25 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as arbitrary and illegal can the judgments and decrees in O.S.852 of 1994 of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur and A.S.133 of 1996 of the District Court, Thrissur can be legally sustainable ? b. When buildings are constructed by a church and let out for rent like any other individual, can it be said that exempting such buildings is in public interest ? c. Is the notice Ext.A2 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act legally sufficient to terminate the tenancy of the appellant ? 8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in K.K.Krishna Pillai v. Infant Jesus church, Ernakulam (2000(1) KLT 197) wherein the notification involved in the suit exempting the plaintiff church from the proviso of Act 2 of 1965 was set aside by this court. Therefore, it is contended that the eviction can be only under the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. Unfortunately for the appellant the said decision stands overruled by a decision reported in Christ The S.A.No. 105 of 2000 4 King Cathedral v. John Ancheril (2001 (2) KLT 946), wherein it was held that the notification is good in law and suffers from no infirmities. If that be so, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the notice is defective. Both the courts below have concurrently held that notice is in tune with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and does not suffer from any defects. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. Second appeal is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln