IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 RSA.No. 631 of 2010() -------------------------------- AS.154/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N. PARAVUR OS.207/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------- M.C. RAVI, AGED 55, S/O.CHATHU, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, AYROOR KARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MATHEW, SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHNY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, CHIRAKAL MANAVALAN HOUSE, AYROOR KARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.631 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 15th June 2010 Judgment Undaunted by the concurrent findings against him, the defendant in OS No.207/06 before the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur, has come up in appeal. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they are available before the Trial Court. 2. The suit was one for eviction with arrears of rent and damages. According to the plaintiff, he obtained title to the suit property as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 24.08.1994. He submitted that the defendant was a tenant of his premises since then and he attorned to the plaintiff and continued the tenancy. Monthly rent of Rs.25/- was being paid by the defendant. From January 2003 onwards, the defendant committed default in payment of the monthly rent. The plaintiff is in need of the plaint schedule building for his own use. So, he asked the defendant to vacate the RSA 631/10 2 premises. But the defendant did not do so. Therefore, the suit was laid, seeking eviction and claiming arrears of rent. 3. The defendant resisted the suit. It was pointed out that the property was taken on lease by him from the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit property. He denied the allegation that the rent has been kept in arrears since January 2003 and also the other allegations in the plaint. He also contended that the plaintiff was not in need of the premises as alleged by him. On the basis of these contentions, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff chose to examine himself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defendant. On the basis of the available materials on record, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title to the suit property and that the status of the defendant was only that of a tenant under the plaintiff. The Trial Court also found that an amount of Rs.750/- was in RSA 631/10 3 arrears towards rent payable to the plaintiff. An amount of Rs.25/- per month from February 2006 till the date of surrendering vacant possession of the building by the defendant, was also directed to be paid to the plaintiff towards damages for use and occupation of the building. 5. The matter was carried in appeal. The lower Appellate Court, on an independent evaluation of the evidence, concurred with the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the plaintiff has not established his title to the property. It is also contended that the property was taken on rent from the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no manner of right to sue him for eviction. 7. Both the above contentions are without any substance whatsoever. The plaintiff submitted that there is clear evidence to the effect that by virtue of Ext.A1, he had obtained title and possession over the suit property. He RSA 631/10 4 has clearly mentioned in the plaint that since the settlement deed was in his favour, the tenant had attorned to him. Though the allegations in the plaint were denied by the defendant, he did not bother to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claims. There was also nothing to show that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property by virtue of Ext.A1. Admittedly, the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the area. It was also found that a notice was issued to the defendant clearly stating that the monthly rent was Rs.25/-, to which no reply was sent by the defendant. The cumulative effect of all these facts compelled the courts below to hold against the defendant. No interference is called for with the findings of the courts below. 8. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel prayed for some time to vacate the premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that a reasonable time should be given to the defendant to vacate the premises. RSA 631/10 5 9. In the result, while dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgments and decrees of the courts below, the defendant is granted three months' time from today, to vacate the premises, provided he deposits the arrears of rent and continues to pay the amount decreed by the courts below as damages and also on filing an unconditional affidavit before the Trial Court, stating that he will vacate the premises within three months from today. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 631/10 6