IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 AS.No. 333 of 2002() ------------------------------ OS.600/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------------- 1. PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PARIYARAM, DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 3RD DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ITTUP, RETIRED HEADMASTER S/O. VALIYAVEETTIL KUNJUVAREED, VYNTHALA DESOM, KALLUR VADAKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. EMILY, W/O. MUNDAMANI JOSE, POOVATHINGAL DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. POULOSE, S/O. PERINGIPARAMBIL DEVASSYKUTTY, KUTTIKKADU DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SMT.K.A.THANU MOL. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS.No. 333 of 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.4176/2002 IN A.S. NO.333/2002 DISMISSED 05/08/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 333 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in O.S.600/95. The suit is one for eviction as well as for realisation of the amount for use and occupation as damages. The defendant is a local body. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in order to run a primary health centre the building belonging to the plaintiffs were given free of rent for a period of one year with a condition that it has to be surrendered immediately on the completion of one year and if any litigation ensues the Panchayath has to bear the same. Accordingly Ext.A2 was A.S. 333 OF 2002 -2- executed on 15.12.92 and the period of one year expired on 15.12.93. It can be seen from the materials available that the building was handed over possession back only on 25.3.97. So the plaintiff had demanded damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for 18 months and necessarily when there is a prayer for recovery of possession the damages sustained till the date of surrender can be given as well. 2. Now, just like an ordinary litigant the Panchayath has raised all untenable contentions. After obtaining the lease agreement executed by the plaintiffs the Panchayath has even challenged the legal heirship with respect to the 3rd plaintiff. What has to be considered in these type of cases is a lessee and lessor relationship and not the ultimate title of the A.S. 333 OF 2002 -3- landlord. When you claim property under three persons they are lessors and after the lease you are bound to surrender the property when demanded by them in accordance with law. Further the trial court has elaborately considered the matter and held that there is no evidence to show that 3rd plaintiff's husband is survived by any other legal heir. Therefore competency to file the suit is in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. Now the learned counsel also strongly submits before me that the rent granted is high and therefore it has to be reduced. It has to be remembered the plaint schedule property is having an area of 900 sq.ft. It is near the public road. It is run for the purpose of running a primary health centre. There is one A.S. 333 OF 2002 -4- hall on the ground floor and one hall on the first floor and rooms for the doctors. So one can necessarily imagine the size of the building. For such a building the rent paid is Rs.900/- per month though the demand is for Rs.2,000/-. Since the Panchayath is the custodian in relation to document of the assessment of tax, the Panchayath wanted to make out a case that only that value can be awarded. It has to be remembered that it is the prevailing rate that has to be taken into consideration as well. 4. PW2 has deposed that even for a 150 sq.ft he has to pay about Rs.700/-. So here the area is about 900 sq.ft. and the damages for use and occupation granted by the trial Court is at Rs.900/- per month that too for a period from A.S. 333 OF 2002 -5- the date of notice till the date of surrender. By any stretch of imagination one cannot hold that the amount granted by the trial court is arbitrary, excessive or incorrect. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 333 OF 2002 -6- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 333 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 5th August, 2010.