The court affirmed that the tenancy was validly terminated and the civil court retains jurisdiction for eviction under general law when specific provisions for eviction are lacking in relevant Acts.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2022

Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court-IV, Kozhikode in A.S. No. 171 of 2015, filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode in O.S. No. 341 of 2014, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.

2. The suit for recovery of the plaint schedule property with damages filed by the plaintiff, Tali Devaswom, against the defendant/tenant was decreed by the trial court. Though, the defendant challenged the judgment and decree it was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

3. The parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court.

4. The case against the defendant/appellant is as follows:

The building scheduled in the plaint was taken on oral lease by the defendant from the members of Thelepurath Tharawad on 11.09.1984 for a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and a security deposit of Rs.180/- for three months. By a registered notice issued on 09.05.2008 the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay monthly rent at an enhanced rate of Rs.475/- from July, 2007 to April, 2008 and to vacate the premises. Rent was kept in arrears from May, 2008 to May, 2011. Then, the plaintiff issued another letter terminating the tenancy on 25.05.2012. Though the notice was received on 04.06.2012, he did not vacate the premises, but sent a reply on 26.07.2012 raising untenable contentions. The plaintiff is a Hindu religious charitable trust which originally belonged to Thelepurath tharawad. The hereditary trustee while holding administration of the temple requested the Tali Devaswom to take over Sree Ramaswami Kshethram with all the movable and immovable properties as the sub-temple of the plaintiff. On 07.05.2007 the Devaswom filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, informing willingness to take over the temple and its properties. Thereafter as per a proceedings dated 08.10.2007, appointed the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff as the trustee of Tali Sree Ramaswami Kshethram and thereafter the entire movable and immovable properties were handed over and the tenancy continued under the plaintiff. Since, the defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule property, the suit was filed for a direction to vacate the premises by the defendant.

5. The defendant admitted the title of the plaintiff and contended that he has been residing in the building situated in the property for the last 30 years and he has no other building for his accommodation. He was granted permission to reside in the house without any time limit. Sufficient space and facilities are available in the temple premises for their requirement and so he is not liable to be evicted from the building and thus contended that the suit is only to be dismissed.

6. Before the court below P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant, he himself was got examined as D.W.1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked.

7. The learned trial Judge after evaluation of the evidence concluded that the defendant is liable to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property with damages at the rate of Rs.475/- per month with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and at the very same rate, for illegal occupation from the date of the suit till the date of recovery of possession.

8. The said judgment was carried in appeal. The learned first appellate court after re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the judgment and decree and concluded that the defendant is liab