VALAPPILEKANDI SAVITHRI Vs. PILLAYAR KOVIL DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.516 of 2000 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur is the appellant. Respondent is the plaintiff. The plaint schedule building admittedly belongs to the respondent, Devaswom. It was granted on lease by the Executive Officer who instituted the suit on behalf of Devaswom in favour of the appellant under Ext.A1. The rent payable is Rs.65/- per month. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the building with arrears of rent contending that Kerala Building(Lease and Rent Control)Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not applicable to the building in view of the notification issued by the Government exempting the building belonging to the respondent under Section 25 of the Act as per notification SRO 2078 of 1993. Appellant resisted the suit contending that Executive Officer is not empowered to file the suit and the building is not exempted from the purview of the Act and therefore respondent is not entitled to the recovery of possession sought for.

(2.) Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 found that appellant is the tenant of the respondent Devaswom under Ext.A1, with a liability to pay monthly rent of Rs.65/- and under Ext.A4 the Executive Officer is authorised to claim recovery of possession and the Act is not applicable in view of the exemption provided under the notification and therefore granted a decree for recovery of possession. Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S.38 of 2003. The learned Sub Judge after reappreciation of evidence confirmed the decree and judgment and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent were heard. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that appellant may be granted one year's time to surrender possession of the building. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that appellant has to make an unconditional undertaking to surrender the building and in that event reasonable time may be granted. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal as both the courts have rightly considered the evidence and the question of law involved.