IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 241 of 2009() --------------------- AS.83/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.487/2002 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARATH AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.P.S.MAHESWARI RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- KEELATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL NABEESA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.POKKERKUTTY HAJI, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KOLACHERI AMSOM, PATIYAM DESOM. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.241 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. 83/2004 on the file of the Additional District Court Thalassery which arises from the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 487/2002 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kannur. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for realisation of rent arrears. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the findings and decreed the suit. Hence the Second Appeal. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. The rent arrears claimed is for the period from 5.9 1999 to 16.8.2002. On 16.8.2002 the defendant has surrendered the building to the plaintiff. The lower appellate court rightly noted that since the defendant has no case that he has discharged the rent for the said period and his plea to the effect that he has discharged the rent of Rs. 3,600/- as per Ext.B1, is not proved by acceptable evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to get the arrears of rent of Rs. 14,160/- for the period from 5.9.1999 to 16.8.2002 as claimed in the plaint. 3. The lower appellate court found that the trial court has R.S.A. No. 241 of 2009 -2- wrongly placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff being found that the landlord relationship is admitted and the liability to pay rent arises from the tenancy agreement is stands proved that defendant is liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff. The lower appellant court also noted that even though there is plea of discharge of rent by the defendant , as per Ext.B1, is not proved by acceptable evidence, the trial court wrongly dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her case. 4. The lower appellate court rightly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay Rs. 15,420/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The decree passed by the lower appellate court cannot be interfered with. Since the lower appellate court entered into a right conclusion after discussing the contentions, both legal and factual, and on the basis of evidence, I do not find any reason to take a different view. No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. No grounds are also made out to invoke Section 100 of the C.P.C.. This Second Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. R.S.A. No. 241 of 2009 -3- HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No.241 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd June, 2009