IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 AS.No. 477 of 1997() -------------------- OS.235/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------- A.K. AMEEN, PROPRIETOR, DAWOOD HAJI AHAMMED, BAZAR ROAD COCHIN - 2. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BRAHMANANDAN SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU SRI.G.S.PRABHU RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------ THE MATTANCHERRY JEEVA MATHA CHURCH (ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH), MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN -2, REP. BY ITS VICAR REV.FR.MARK ANTONY PUTHENPARAMBIL AND KAIKARS - 1. C.P. JOSEPH, AGED 36, S/O. C.L. PAILEE CHEMMAYATH HOUSE, KARIPALAM, COCHIN-2. 2. C.J. ANTONY, AGED 35, 7/221, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, CHAKKAMADAM, COCHIN -2. 3. P.D. VINCENT, AGED 36, S/O. DEVASSY, 7/191, PALLIPARAMBIL, CHAKKAMADAM, COCHIN -2. BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON 23/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3761/97 IN A.S.NO.477 OF 1997 DISMISSED SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE 23.12.2009 /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S. No. 477 of 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 235 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in that suit, which was filed for recovery of possession, compensation and for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The plaint allegations are briefly as follows. The plaint schedule buildings belonged to the plaintiff church. The buildings were let out to the grand father of the defendant in the year 1946 on a monthly rent of Rs.850/-. Defendant is the present tenant and the rent is Rs.1,170/- per month. The defendant unauthorisedly sublet the premises to A.S. No. 477 of 1997 2 different persons. One of the buildings has been destroyed due to fire due to the negligence of defendant and his sub-lessees. The plaintiff sustained damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,500/-. Rent of the building from 1.12.1993 is in arrears. A notice was issued to the tenant demanding surrender of possession and also to pay compensation and arrears of rent. It is also prayed that the defendant may be restrained from making any construction or effect repairs to the buildings. 3. The defendant contended that the court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of eviction, for which only the Rent Control Court has jurisdiction. The notice issued by the plaintiff for eviction does not satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the plaintiff has accepted the rent subsequent to the issuance of notice and hence there is waiver of notice. The defendant has paid rent up to date and there is no arrears of rent as alleged. A.S. No. 477 of 1997 3 4. The lease deed executed by the plaintiff does allow to sublet. Even at the time of letting, many of the buildings were in possession of sub-tenants. The tenant was allowed to evict the sub-tenants and to sublet premises to any person of his choice. The godown which was destroyed by fire was in the possession and use of two sub lessees. The building caught fire not due to any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It was an accident, an act of God. In case the plaintiff is entitled for damages, he can only recover from the sub lessees and not from this defendant. The sub-lessees are necessary parties to the suit and the amount claimed as damages is exorbitant. Defendant has been attending to necessary repairs and periodical maintenance all along. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of injunction. 5. In the Sub Court PWs.1 to 3 and DW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B8, C1 and C1(a) were marked. The learned Sub Judge, on considering the evidence, decreed the suit A.S. No. 477 of 1997 4 in part with proportionate cost, directing the defendant to surrender possession of the suit premises and vacant possession of the plaint schedule building to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree. The defendant shall pay mesne profits to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1,170/- from the date of the decree till recovery of possession or for three years from the date of decree, whichever event occurs first. The relief in the plaint relating to compensation, injunction and arrears of rent stand dismissed. Against that judgment and decree the defendant filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect that the plaint schedule buildings are exempted from the purview of Section 11 of the Rent Control Act and that under Order VII Rule 1(f) C.P.C. the A.S. No. 477 of 1997 5 plaint shall contain facts showing that the court has jurisdiction and as such the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction from the plaint schedule building. Issue regarding question of jurisdiction was considered by the Sub Court, Kochi under Issue No.9 by a separate order dt. 12.7.1996 and found that, that court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit on finding that the plaint schedule building belongs to a Church, which is exempted from the purview of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Against that finding, the defendant filed C.R.P.No. 2015 of 1996 before this Court and this Court, as per order dt.26.9.1996 dismissed that C.R.P. without prejudice to the rights of the defendant to raise this contention in appeal. 8. Under Section 9 of the C.P.C., a civil Court can entertain a suit of civil nature, except a suit of which its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is settled principle that it is for the party, who seeks to oust jurisdiction of a civil court, to A.S. No. 477 of 1997 6 establish his contentions. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed. Under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Court can take judicial notice of a Government Notification issued in exercise of statutory powers. 9. Admittedly the plaint schedule buildings are situated in Mattancherry Village, where the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applies. Section 25 of that Act empowers the Government to exempt any building or class of buildings from the application of that Act. There is no dispute that the State Government issued Notification under Section 25 of the Act exempting the building of Churches of all minority religions from the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Act, vide S.R.O.No. 435/92 – G.O. (Ms) No. 14/92/Hsg dt. 7.3.1992 in Kerala Gazette No.14 dt. 7.4.1992. The plaintiff is a Roman Catholic Church represented by its Vicar and Kaikars. The A.S. No. 477 of 1997 7 defendant has no case that the plaintiff is not a Church coming under the purview of that Notification. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in finding that that court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, eventhough there is no specific pleading in the plaint with regard to the exemption from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the decision of this Court reported in Abdul Hameed Rawther v. Balakrishna Pillai (1968 KLT 865), argued that since the appellant is continuing in possession after the expiry of the period of lease, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary to determine the lease. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of this Court reported in Mehta & Co. v. Lalen (1974 KLT 89) argued that a tenant by holding over shall be sued for eviction only after termination of lease by notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. The learned counsel for A.S. No. 477 of 1997 8 the appellant further submitted that since the rent is enhanced from time to time a new tenancy comes into existence and as such notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is necessary to terminate the tenancy. 11. In the plaint it is alleged that the initial rent was Rs.850/- per month which has been enhanced on various occasions and at present it is Rs.1,170/- p.m. In the written statement it is contended that the rent fixed by Ext.B8 registered Rent Deed was Rs.650/-, which was subsequently raised on various occasions and the present monthly rent is Rs.1,170/- The defendant contends that under the above Lease Deed the defendant is legally entitled to sub lease and that sub lease is binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant has no case that new tenancy is created by enhancement of rent. The payment and acceptance of enhanced rent does not itself import a new demise. A.S. No. 477 of 1997 9 12. In the present case, Ext.B8 is the copy of the Rent Deed dt.15.3.1946 executed between the plaintiff Church and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant. That Rent Deed was executed on 15.3.1946, but the document recites that the lease commenced from 1.3.1946. The period of lease was for three years and that document directs the lessee to surrender possession on demand at any time after the expiry of the lease period. Clauses (2) and (7) of Ext.B8 read as follows: A.S. No. 477 of 1997 10 The learned Sub Judge, on considering these terms of Ext.B8 came to the conclusion that the defendant is a tenant at will and not a tenant by holding over and as such no notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is necessary. A.S. No. 477 of 1997 11 13. In the case of Abdul Hameed Rawther (supra) the Lease Deed contains the following clause: In the decision in Mehta & Co (supra) the Lease Deed contains a similar clause. It was held in both the above decisions that the relevant clause did not amount to a contract to the contrary. But the clause in the present case is different from the clauses mentioned in the above two decisions. 14. In the decision reported in Devaki v. Alavi (1979 KLT 67 (FB) it was held that: A stipulation to the effect that the lessee shall surrender possession of the property A.S. No. 477 of 1997 12 leased on demand made in that behalf by the lessor, is nothing but a stipulation that the lease is determinable at the will of the lessor, and a 'contract to the contrary' as envisaged by S.106 of the Act. Ext.A1 in this case is a composite document creating a lease for a specified term of three months during which period neither party can except by a bilateral act terminate the lease, followed by a tenancy at will simpliciter not amounting to a renewed tenancy by holding over under S.116 of the Act, and therefore, neither of the two sections Ss.106 an 116 of the Act, is a bar to a suit for recovery of possession of the property leased nor is any notice under S.106 of the Act required to determine the tenancy. A tenancy at will stands determined by any demand for surrender of possession of the property made by the landlord and such demand may be the one contained in the plaint. By Ext.A2 lawyer's notice the lease was determined with effect from 30.7.1971 and the A.S. No. 477 of 1997 13 landlord demanded surrender of possession of the property as on that date. The landlord therefore was entitled to sue for recovery of possession of the property from and after that date. 15. Clause 7 of Ext.B8 created a tenancy at will. Therefore there is a contract to the contrary to make Section 106 of the T.P. Act inapplicable in this case. The tenancy at will is determinable on demand for possession. That demand could be oral or in writing. Ext.A4 notice dt. 29.3.1994 issued by the plaintiff amount to a demand to surrender possession. It is true that the name of the defendant is wrongly shown in Ext.A4 notice. But it was received by the defendant and Ext.A5 reply notice was issued by the defendant. Since notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act itself is not necessary, there is no necessity to consider whether that notice is waived by the plaintiff under Section 113 of the T.P. A.S. No. 477 of 1997 14 Act by accepting rent after issuance of that notice. However, the mere acceptance of rent does not amount to waiver of notice, in view of the decision reported in Sarup Singh Gupta v. Jagdish Singh (2006 (2) KLT 860 (SC). In the decision reported in Sachidanandan v. Khader (2004 (1) KLT SN 83) it was held that after the amendment of Section 106 of the T.P. Act, there is no scope for an argument that notice terminating tenancy has not ended with the month of the tenancy as it is made clear that no such defence can be taken if the suit is filed after the period of notice as required under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. 16. As observed by the learned Sub Judge, the filing of the suit itself is a demand to the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule building. Since the tenancy is validly terminated, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in decreeing the suit in part directing the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the A.S. No. 477 of 1997 15 plaint schedule building. Therefore, we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree in O.S. No. 235 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi is confirmed . The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm