IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 RSA.NO. 1209 OF 2009() ---------------------- AS.139/2009 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR OS.228/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------- GEETHA BEEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SULAIMAN, PUTHENKOTTAKKAL, VALLUVALLY KARA, KOTTUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, ANJAKULATH, RESIDING AT 'PRASANTHI', ALAMTHURUTH KARA, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DINESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT 'SREEVILASATH', MACHANTHURUTH KARA, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, North Paravur in A.S. No.139 of 2009 confirming judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, North Paravur in O.S. No.228 of 2001 granting decree in favour of respondent for recovery of possession of the building referred to in the suit property, for rent arrears and damages for use and occupation. Respondent claimed that the suit property and the building thereon belonged to him and it was taken on rent by the appellant as per rent deed dated 11.4.200 fixing rent of Rs.660/- per month. As per the rent deed if rent is defaulted it is open to the respondent to terminate the rental arrangement and seek eviction. According to the respondent, appellant defaulted payment of rent from 11.4.2000. Hence respondent issued notice on 25.1.2001 terminating tenancy by 11.3.2001 and demanding vacant possession with rent arrears. On the failure of appellant to comply with the notice respondent instituted the suit. Appellant contended that the building in question belonged to her. Her husband had borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent and executed some documents by way of security. Title deed and rent R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 -: 2 :- deed were created as security for repayment of the loan. Of the said amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and the balance payable is only Rs.50,000/-. It was contended that termination of tenancy is not valid. Trial court found against the contentions of appellant and granted decree. First appellate court confirmed it. Hence the Second Appeal contending that termination of tenancy is not valid in that intention of respondent was not to terminate the rental arrangement. 2. Exhibit A5 is the document of title in favour of the respondent and Ext.A1 is the rent deed. Appellant gave evidence as D.W.1 and her husband as D.W.2. Both of them admitted Exts.A1 and A5. Exhibits A10 and A11 are the prior rent deeds dated 11.6.1998 and 12.5.1999 which also D.Ws.1 and 2 admitted. Exhibit A2 is the Power of Attorney executed by the respondent in favour of the person who verified, signed and presented the plaint. Now there is no challenge to the title of respondent or the finding of the courts below that appellant is a tenant of the building in the suit property. So far as rent arrears is concerned there is no case for the appellant that she has paid the rent. 3. It is contended that the notice does not express any intention to terminate the lease. Learned counsel placed before me a R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 -: 3 :- copy of Ext.A3, notice dated 25.1.2009 for perusal. There, after referring to the rental arrangement for a period of eleven months as per Ext.A1 and the rent being in arrears from 11.4.2000 it is stated that appellant has to vacate the building on payment of rent arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and notice charges treating that rental arrangement is terminated by 11.3.2001. According to the learned counsel Ext.A3 does not show any intention to terminate the tenancy. 4. Exhibit A1 shows that tenancy commenced on 11.4.2000. It is a monthly tenancy. Hence it is terminable on giving 15 days' notice expiring by the end of the month of tenancy. Direction in Ext.A3, notice is that treating the rental arrangement as terminated by 11.3.2001 appellant has to vacate the building paying the rent arrears. There is no dispute that 15 days' time has been granted to the appellant. If 11.3.2001 is taken as the date of termination of tenancy such termination is after giving 15 days' notice which expired by the end of the month of tenancy. From the mere fact that it is not stated in so many words in Ext.A3 that tenancy is terminated by 11.3.2001 it cannot be said that Ext.A3 did not indicate intention to terminate the tenancy. Exhibit A3 is sufficient to show that tenancy R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 -: 4 :- was terminated by the end of the month of tenancy i.e. by 11.3.2001. Moreover, if at all there is any defect in the wording in Ext.A3, that is cured by the subsequent statement in Ext.A3 that if the appellant thought, under law, any other date as necessary for the valid termination of the tenancy it is for her to take such date as the date of termination of tenancy with intimation to the respondent. When the contract of tenancy expired by efflux of time or the rental arrangement provided that it is open to the landlord to terminate tenancy on failure of tenant to comply with any of the conditions in the rent deed, a notice of termination itself need not be insisted. Courts below have considered these aspects and held that contention regarding validity of termination of tenancy cannot stand. On hearing learned counsel for appellant and going through the judgment under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal requiring its admission. 5. Counsel requested that appellant may be granted six months' time to vacate the premises. The suit was filed in the year 2001. Appellant raised all possible contentions and failed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to grant six months' time. But considering the time required to find out R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 -: 5 :- an alternative accommodation I am inclined grant three months' time to the appellant from this day to vacate the suit property on condition that appellant filed an 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 putting forth any claim or objection. With the above observations, Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No.2752 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv R.S.A. NO.1209 of 2009 -: 6 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== R.S.A. NO.1209 OF 2009 =================== J U D G M E N T 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009