IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 RSA.No. 27 of 2005(C) --------------------- AS.188/1998 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 25.11.2000 OS.682/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD DATED 29.11.1997 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ST.ANTONY'S R.C.CHURCH, THIRUVENKIDAM DESOM, IRINJAPURAM AMSOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY FR.CLEMENT VAZHAPARAMBIL, S/O. V.V.JACOB, VICAR OF ST.ANTONY'S R.C.CHURCH. 2. P.I.SIMON, S/O. ITTOOP, TRUSTEE OF ST.ANTONY'S R.C.CHURCH. 3. THOMAS N.L., S/O. LASER, TRUSTEE OF ST.ANTONY'S R.C. CHURCH. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. LASERKUTTY (DIED), S/O. VADAKKEN VAREED, THIRUVENKIDAM (PO), IRINJAPURAM, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SAJAN, S/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, -DO-. 3. JOHNSON, S/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, -DO-. 4. THOBBIYAS, S/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, -DO-. 5. ANTONY, S/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, -DO-. 6. BRACY VARGHESE, D/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, DO-. 7. THRESSIA, W/O. LATE LASERKUTTY, -DO-. 8. SALI THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, ARTHATTU (P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. VINCENT, S/O. LASERKUTTY, VADAKKEN HOUSE (P.O) CHEMMANUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R2, 3, 5, 7 TO 9 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Shg/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.S.A.No. 27 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. In respect of a shop room admittedly belonging to the appellant taken on rent by deceased respondent No.1 (whose legal representatives are respondents Nos. 2 to 9) appellant, St. Antony's Roman Catholic Church sued for eviction with rent arrears in the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad in O.S. No.682 of 1994. Though various contentions were raised by deceased respondent No.1, learned Munsiff rejected the contentions and granted decree in favour of appellant for eviction with rent arrears and interest payable thereon. Deceased respondent No.1 took up the matter in appeal before learned District Judge, Thrissur in A.S. No.188 of 1998. By that time, a Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Krishna Pillai v. Infant Jesus Church, Ernakulam (2000 (1) KLT 197) held that exemption provided under Section 25 (1) of Act 2 of 1965 is applicable only to building or class of buildings specifically or generally exempted and not to buildings owned by any individual/institution or organisation referred to therein. In the light of that decision, learned District Judge after hearing both parties found that in respect of the shop room in question no such R.S.A.No. 27 of 2005 -2- special or general exemption has been obtained and hence suit for eviction is not maintainable remedy of appellant being to invoke the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. Decree for eviction was set aside. However, decree for rent arrears was confirmed. Aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree refusing eviction, appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. 2. Substantial question of law formulated by this court for a decision is whether “in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Christ The King Cathedral v. John Ancheril (2001 (2) KLT 946)is not the decision of the appellate court liable to be reversed”. 3. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. The only point that survives for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to seek eviction of respondents through the civil court and without recourse the Provisions of Act 2 of 1965. The Supreme Court in Christ The King Cathedral v. John Ancheril referred supra reversed the decision in K.K. Krishna Pillai v. Infant Jesus Church, Ernakulam and held that exemption under Section 25 (1) of the Act 2 of 1965 is applicable to churches, mosques, temples etc. of all minority religions and other institutions referred to therein. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the substantial question of law is only to be answered in favour of the appellant holding that suit for eviction is maintainable and that the civil court is entitled to grant decree for R.S.A.No. 27 of 2005 -3- eviction. The substantial questions of law is therefore answered as above. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is allowed, judgment and decree of the first appellate court to the extent it went against the appellant are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court in its entirety are restored. Additional respondent Nos.2 to 9 are granted three months time from today to vacate the premises on condition that they filed affidavit in the trial court within three weeks from this day undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period of three months without making any claim or objection. Parties are directed to suffer their cost in the Second Appeal. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE shg/