Kerala High Court
K.V.Alex vs Ottapalam Taluk Shornur Csi Trust ... on 25 September, 2012
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934
RSA.No. 1087 of 2011 ( )
------------------------
AS.178/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,PALAKKAD
OS.634/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
------------
K.V.ALEX, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS,
RESDIDING AT HOUSE NO.7/271, CHANDRANAGAR,
MARUTHAROAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
--------------
OTTAPALAM TALUK SHORNUR CSI TRUST ASSOCIATION LTD.,
NORTH KERALA DIOCESE - REP. BY ATTORNEYS,
1. REV. DR. GEORGE ISAC, S/O.P.J.ISAC (LATE), AGED 70 YEARS,
2. REV. GEORGE NINAN, S/O.P.N.GEORGE (LATE), AGED 68 YEARS.
BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25-09-2012, ALONG WITH RSA. 496/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
R.S.A. Nos.1087 of 2011
&
496 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Though these second appeals arise from separate judgment and decree of the courts below, since common questions are raised, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. R.S.A.No.1087 of 2011 arises from the judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Palakkad in O.S.No.634 of 2005, confirmed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Palakkad in A.S.No.178 of 2008.
3. R.S.A.No.496 of 2012 arises from the judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Palakkad in O.S.No.656 of 2005, confirmed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Palakkad in A.S.No.154 of 2007.
4. Both the appeals are preferred by the respective defendant in the suits. The respondent/plaintiff is the North Kerala Diocese, CSI Trust Association Ltd., Shornur, Ottapalam Taluk, represented by its power of attorneys (i) Rev. Dr.George Isac and (ii) Rev. Dr.George Ninan. According to the respondent, the rooms referred in the plaint schedule belong to the North Kerala Diocese of the CSI Church and the respondent - Trust was formed for the proper management of the said rooms. The respondent, as per a deed of RSA No.1087/2011 & 496/2012 2 license put the appellants in possession of the rooms referred in the plaint schedule on agreement to pay license fee. The respondent also alleged that the license fee/rent is in arrears. It demanded vacant possession of the rooms with arrears of license fee/rent. Alternatively, it contended that assuming that the transaction between the parties is a lease arrangement, the same was validly terminated by notice.
5. The appellants contended that the transaction between them and the respondent is a lease arrangement, that they are entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965 and that at any rate, termination of the lease arrangement is not valid.
6. The courts below held that the transaction between the parties is a lease arrangement. However, other contentions raised by the appellants were negatived and the respondent was given decree for recovery of possession of rooms with rent arrears. That decision of the trial court was confirmed by the first appellate court in the appeals first above stated. Hence these second appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the courts below having found the transaction between the appellants and the respondent to be a lease arrangement, ought to have found that the appellants are entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965. It is contended that what is exempted by the notification relied on by the respondent and referred to by the courts below is buildings of the Dioceses and not buildings belonging to the respondent-Trust under the Dioceses. The learned counsel has invited my RSA No.1087/2011 & 496/2012 3 attention to Sec.25 of Act 2 of 1965 and the agreement of lease entered into by the parties. It is further contended that there is no valid termination of the tenancy.
8. The learned counsel who took notice for the respondent contended that no substantial question of law is involved. According to the learned counsel, the rooms belong to the North Kerala Diocese of the CSI Church and the respondent-Trust was formed only for management of the rooms. It is also contended that the tenancy was validly terminated.
9. By virtue of the power conferred under Sec.25 of Act 2 of 1965 the Government of Kerala has issued notification (SRO No.769/96). The notification is extracted by the first appellate court in its judgment. The said notification states that the Government of Kerala has exempted buildings of all Dioceses, Archdioceses, Monastries, Convents, Wakfs and Madrassas from the provisions of Secs.4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of Act 2 of 1965. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is that what is exempted as per the notification issued by the Government is buildings of the "Dioceses" whereas in the present cases, the rooms belong to the respondent-Trust formed by the Diocese of the CSI Church. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the meaning of the word 'Diocese' in Corpus Juris Secundum. There, the expression 'Diocese' is given the meaning 'the circuit or extent of a bishop's jurisdiction; the district in which a bishop exercises'.
RSA No.1087/2011 & 496/2012 4
10. Ext.A1, described as a deed of license (but, found by the courts below as a lease agreement) states that it is executed between the respondent (the Church of South India Trust Association Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act) and the appellant concerned. What is averred in the plaint is that the rooms referred in the plaint schedule belong to the North Kerala Diocese of the CSI Church and that for the management of the rooms a Trust (respondent) was formed. That is what is discernible from the deed of license (found by the courts below as a lease agreement). There, it is specifically stated that the respondent - Trust is a company registered under the Companies Act and is the trustee of the properties held beneficially for the Church of South India. Thus, it is clear that the rooms belong to the North Kerala Diocese of the CSI Church. It is only that the respondent is the trust formed for management of the rooms and that in that capacity, the respondent has entered into the lease arrangement with the appellant.
11. The contention that there is no valid termination of the tenancy cannot also be accepted. Moreover, the amendment brought by Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it abundantly clear that the notice terminating tenancy shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under Sub-sec.(1).
12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides I find no substantial question of law.
RSA No.1087/2011 & 496/2012 5
13. Learned counsel requested that the appellants may be granted six (6) months time to vacate the schedule rooms. Learned counsel is hopefull that the appellants may be able to have a settlement with the respondent.
14. I heard the learned counsel for the respondent also on the request made by the learned counsel for appellants for time to vacate the schedule rooms. Having regard to the circumstances stated by the learned counsel I am inclined to grant six (6) months time to vacate the schedule rooms but, subject to conditions.
Resultantly, these second appeals are dismissed with the following directions:
i. The appellant in both the appeals are granted six (6) months time from 01.10.2012 to vacate the schedule rooms. They shall do so by the expiry of the said period of six months from 01.10.2012.
ii. The appellants shall be liable to pay rent at the agreed rate from 01.10.2012 during the said period of six months or till they vacate the schedule rooms, whichever is earlier.
iii. The rent shall be paid by cheque or deposited in the executing court on or before the 10th of each month. RSA No.1087/2011 & 496/2012 6
iv. The appellants shall not, during the said period of six months induct third parties into possession of the schedule rooms.
v. If any of the above conditions is violated, it will be open to the respondent to execute the decree notwithstanding the time granted hereby.
vi. It is directed that the execution proceeding if any initiated by the respondent shall stand in abeyance during the said period of six months or till any of the conditions is violated or till the appellants vacate the schedule rooms, whichever is earlier.
v. Needless to say that the decree of this Court or of the courts below will not stand in the way of the parties entering into any fresh arrangement as regards the schedule rooms.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks