JUDGMENT

Defendant who successively lost in the courts below is before me in this Second Appeal. Respondent sued the appellant for recovery of possession of the shop room described in the plaint schedule with arrears of rent. It is not disputed that plaint schedule shop room belonged to the respondent and was entrusted to the appellant on rent of Rs.175/- per month as per Ext.A1 dated 1.8.1983. It is the further case of respondent that rent was enhanced to Rs.200/- per month from 1.6.1989 onwards but rent at that rate is in arrears from April, 1996 onwards (respondent however limited the claim of rent arrears for three years prior to the suit). According to the respondent, it wanted to construct a new building at the place of shop room in question. It has filed O.S.No.203 of 1999 for eviction. But that suit was dismissed in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishna Pillai v. Infant Jesus Church (2000 (1) KLT 197) holding that respondent is not entitled to the exemption under Section 25 of Act 2 of 1965. Later in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Christ The King Cathedral v. John Ancheril [2001 (2) KLT 946] respondent filed the present suit for recovery of