The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the notification exempting buildings of churches/mosques of minority religions from certain provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The court clarified the meaning of 'church' in the notification and the requirement to establish the church as a minority institution.

The defendant is the appellant. The defendant is the tenant of a building leased out to him by the first plaintiff church. After terminating the tenancy the first plaintiff Church through its Kaikars filed the suit for eviction. The building is admittedly located in an area to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stood extended. The plaintiff filed the suit without approaching the Rent Control Court established under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the building belonging to the first plaintiff-Church were exempt from the purview of the Act in lieu of the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Act as per G.O. (MS) No. 14/92/HSG. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable. It was contended that the first plaintiff was not properly represented in the suit. The Notification under Section 25 of the Act relied on by the plaintiffs did not apply to the plaint schedule building. The plaint schedule property did not belong to the first plaintiff Church. The plaintiff were not entitled to a decree for eviction as against the defendant. The defendant was a tenant protected by the Act.

2. The suit was filed on 10-3-1995. The notification dated 7-3-1992 issued under Section 25(1) of the Act which was in force then was to the following effect.

"............ The Government of Kerala hereby exempt, in public interest, the buildings, of all churches/mosques of all the minority religions from the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the said Act."

It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the said notification had no application since the building in question was not part of a church building and was not a building of the first plaintiff church since church was not a legal entity and the building was not owned by the church but by the Edavaka and the first plaintiff church was not the church of a minority religion. The trial Court held that the defendant had taken the building on rent from the first plaintiff church, the defendant was not entitled to deny the title of the landlord, that the kaikars were competent to represent the church and in view of the notification under Section 25(1) of the Act, the relevant provision of the Act did not have application and hence the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for recovery of possession. It cannot be said that the trial Court clearly tackled the question sought to be raised by the defendant or answered it properly. The defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court.

3. The trial Court rendered its decision on 16-9-1996. On 30-10-1996 a Notification G.O. (Ms)40/96/HSG dated 30-10-1996 was issued in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Act by amending the earlier notification G.O.(Ms)14/92/HSG dated 17-3-1992. By virtue of the amendment in addition to the buildings of all churches/mosques of all the minority religions, building of all dioceses, Arch-dioceses, monastries, convents, Wakfs and Madrasas in the State were also exempted from the provisions of the Act. It may be better to quote the relevant portion of the amended notification at this stage.

".......... The Government of Kerala hereby exempt, in public interest, the buildings of all churches/mosques of all the minority religions and buildings of all dioceses, arch-dioceses, monasteries, convents, wakfs and madrasas in the State from the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the said Act."

The defendant filed the appeal before the appellate Court challenging the decree of the trial Court on 8-11-1996. The defendant contended that the notification dated 7-3-1992 would not enable the first plaintiff church to maintain the present suit for recovery of possession and he was a protected tenant under the Act. The contention of the defendant in essence was that church being not a legal entity could not own property and the building in question was not owned by