Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20366
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ST. MARY'S FORANE CHURCH – Respondent
RSA/417/2022
B.S.SURESH KUMAR, ASHLEY JOHN, GEORGE CHERIAN, RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL
Buildings owned by minority religious institutions are exempt from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, allowing landlords to terminate tenancy and seek eviction without adherence to usual rent control provisions.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 25, 17(1)(d) - The court found the building exempt from rent control provisions, validating the landlord's termination of tenancy and supporting eviction.
Fact of the Case:
A church owned a building leased to a financial institution which unilaterally revised rent and continued to occupy the property after lease termination demands. Plaintiffs sued for eviction and damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the plaintiffs' authority to sue, upheld the termination of the tenancy, and validated the compensation for unauthorized occupation.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had the authority to file the suit, if the civil suit was maintainable under the rent control act, and if the termination of tenancy was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a registered lease deed invalidated defendants' claim to an extended tenancy, validating plaintiffs' actions to reclaim possession and order damages for unauthorized occupation.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with the defendants required to vacate the premises by 15.04.2023.
Certainly. Here are the key points extracted from the provided legal document:
-
The building in question belongs to a minority religious institution, specifically a church, and is exempt from the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, allowing the landlord to terminate the tenancy and seek eviction without adhering to the usual rent control procedures (!) .
-
The relationship between the parties was established through a lease agreement, with initial rent payments and subsequent rent revisions, which the defendants unilaterally altered without a registered deed, invalidating their claim to an extended tenancy (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiffs issued a valid notice to terminate the tenancy, which was duly received by the defendants, and the defendants' reply was found to be untenable, confirming the validity of the termination (!) .
-
The courts below correctly appreciated the evidence, confirming that the defendants did not vacate the premises within the stipulated time, and ordered their eviction along with damages for unauthorized occupation at a specified rate (!) (!) .
-
The exemption of buildings owned by religious institutions from rent control laws was supported by notifications and government orders, and the courts rightly held that the civil suit was maintainable despite the defendants' contentions (!) .
-
The authority of the plaintiffs to institute the suit was established, and the challenge to their authority was dismissed, as the suit was filed by the church's representatives (!) .
-
The appeal was dismissed, with the court giving the defendants a deadline to vacate the premises by a specified date, on the condition of filing an undertaking and paying damages for use and occupation (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the courts correctly applied legal principles regarding tenancy, exemption of religious buildings from rent control, and the validity of notices and lease arrangements, leading to the affirmation of the eviction order.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2022.
This R.S.A has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.43/2020 on the files of 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.800/2016 on the files of IIIrd Additional Munsiff's & Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. Appellants are defendants in the original suit (parties hereinafter be referred as per their status before the Trial court).
2. Plaint schedule building belongs to 1st plaintiff church which is represented by its Vicar and trustees who are 2nd & 3rd plaintiff in the appeal. The building was let out to the 1st defendant, a financial institution represented by Deputy General Manager and the 2nd defendant is the area head of the institution. Originally, the building was taken on lease on 25.06.2007 for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. The lease continued upto 24.05.2014 for the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. Though the plaintiffs thereafter demanded to vacate the premises for own use, defendant continued to occupy the premises. The request of the plaintiff to enhance the rent to Rs.25,000/- was also not accepted by the defendants. Instead of that, the defendants unilaterally revised the rent to Rs.11,050/- and continued the occupation of the building. Plaintiff terminated the lease arrangement by issuing notice dated 08.12.2016 demanding vacant possession of the premises within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. However, the defendants sent reply stating false contentions alleging there was an understanding between plaintiffs and defendants by which they continued occupation of the plaint A schedule building for the extended period of six years agreeing to enhance the rent by every two years. Hence suit has been filed for eviction and for realisation of compensation for unauthorised occupation @ Rs.30,000/- per month.
3. Defendants denied tenancy arrangement and even the title of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property, the authority of the person who instituted the suit on behalf of the church is also challenged. It is contended that the rate of rent was Rs.7,500/- per month during three years tenure from 25.05.2011 onwards. Thereafter, they claimed to have occupied the building with enhanced rent of Rs.11,050/- per month for a further period of six years with the understanding that there would be enhancement of rent @ 10% on the expiry of every two years. But lease deed could not be executed due to the poor health of the person who represented the plaintiff. Alleged enhancement of rent at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month is stoutly denied.
4. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A6 marked from the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the defendants.
5. Trial court on evaluating the evidence adduced from both sides and facts and circumstances, decreed the suit with cost, ordering eviction of the defendants from the plaint A schedule property. It is also found that plaintiff is entitled to realise damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs11,050/- per month from 15.01.2016 till getting vacant possession of plaint A schedule property.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court, defendants preferred appeal and the 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court.
7. Having lost before both forums, defendants approaches this Court in second appeal. Notice was issued to the respondents. Both sides were heard.
8. Though authority of the signatory to the plaint to institute the suit is challenged, it has come out that suit has been filed by the Vicar and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, who are the trustees of the church. Though contentions has been raised by the defendants questioning the authority of the plaintiff in representing the church, no reason whatsoever has been raised specifically as to what prevented the Vicar and trustees in representing the chu
