JUDGMENT

The appellant is the defendant in O.S No.1048/2015 of the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha (Trial Court). The respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff in the suit. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the original suit.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room and to recover an amount of Rs.54,065/- with interest from the defendant and her assets, towards arrears of rent.

3. The case of the plaintiff represented by the Church Wardens is that, the plaintiff (Church) is constituted as per the Constitution of CSI Madhya Kerala Diocese. The properties of the Church are managed and administered by the Church Wardens. The plaint schedule shop room belongs to the church, which is a minority community exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The shop room was given on rent to the defendant's husband. On the death of the defendant's husband, the defendant succeeded the tenancy. The agreed rate of rent is Rs.825/- per month. The defendant was irregular in paying the monthly rent. As on 31.8.2015, an amount of Rs 53,240/- is due to the Church. Although the church had requested for revision of rent and payment of arrears of rent, the defendant avoided the same by giving lame excuses. Since the plaintiff had refused to revise the rent and committed default in payment of rent, the plaintiff issued a lawyer notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 30.9.2015, and sought vacant possession of the shop room and payment of the arrears of rent. Even though the tenancy was terminated on 30.9.2015, the defendant failed to vacate the shop room or to pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit is not maintainable. The defendant disputed the constitution of the Church and contended that the church wardens had no authority to manage the properties. The suit as framed was legally barred. The church has no ownership or authority over the plaint schedule shop room. The defendant was not the lone successor of the shop room. The defendant has no liability to pay any amount towards arrears of rent. The Church is not entitled to evict the defendant from the shop room. There exists no landlord-tenant relationship as alleged in the plaint. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, and directed the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule shop room and pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs 54,065/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff was also permitted to realise compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the defendant from

1.10.2015, till she vacates the shop room.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant preferred AS No.80/2019 before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned judgment upheld the decree of the Trial Court in part, by directing the defendant to vacate the petition schedule shop room, but modified the decree with regard to the payment of arrears of rent, by directing the defendant to pay Rs.28,050/- instead of Rs.54,065/-

7. It is challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below that the appellant is before this Court, through this second appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the court below is justified in allowing the prayers sought in the plaint without any documentary proof ?

2. Is the court below failed to consider the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title or authority over plaint schedule shop room?

3. Whether the plaintiff church is exempted from the provisions of Act 2 of 1965?

4. Whether the court below has failed to consider the fact that appellant is not a tenant? 5. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff can be allowed without proving the title over the plaint schedul