IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 RSA.NO. 480 OF 2010() --------------------- {A.S.NO.104/2007 OF SUB COURT, PALA IN O.S.NO.118/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA} .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------- THOMAS MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLLAKOMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM KARA, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SHASHI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------ K.M.MEERANNAN, S/O.MOOSAVUKHAN, KOCHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL P.O., KOOTTICKAL KARA, KOOTICKAL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.480 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The defendant in a suit for arrears of rent has filed this appeal challenging the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The respondent claimed a decree for eviction of the appellant with arrears of rent alleging a tenancy arrangement over the building covered by the suit. The appellant disputed the tenancy arrangement and also challenged the title of the plaintiff over the property. Both the courts concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff upholding the tenancy arrangement pleaded over the building with the defendant/appellant on the basis of the materials tendered in the case. The only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant to impeach the decree is based on the premise that a notification had been issued under Section 23 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2/1965 {for short “the Act”}, in respect of R.S.A.No.480 of 2010 :: 2 :: the area covering the building that the provisions of the said Act is applicable and so much so, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the decree for eviction of the appellant. 3. The plea now canvassed for entertaining this second appeal admittedly was not raised before any of the courts below. The decree granted for recovery of the plaint schedule property and also to realise the loss of profit on the scheduled building. At least to that extent, the respondent is entitled to execute the decree. The question of eviction of the appellant, pursuant to the decree is barred or not, in case there is a notification as canvassed by the appellant, can be raised before the execution court as well. I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.