BHAVANJI HANSARAJ Vs. LOURDES CHURCH PERUMANOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The defendant is the tenant of a building leased out to him by the first plaintiff church. . After terminating the tenancy the first plaintiff Church through its Kaikars filed the suit for eviction. The building is admittedly located in an area to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stood extended. The plaintiff filed the suit without approaching the Rent Control Court established under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the building belonging to the first plaintiff-Church were exempt from the purview of the Act in lieu of the notification issued under S.25(1) of the Act as per G.O. (MS) No. 14/92/HSG. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable. It was contended that the first plaintiff was not properly represented in the suit. The Notification under S.25 of the Act relied on by the plaintiffs did not apply to the plaint schedule building. The plaint schedule property did not belong to the first plaintiff Church. The plaintiff were not entitled to a decree for eviction as against the defendant. The defendant was a tenant protected by the Act.

(2.) The suit was filed on 10-3-1995. The notification dated 7-3-1992 issued under S.25( 1) of the Act which was in force then was to the following effect.

(3.) The Trial Court rendered its decision on 16-9-1996. On 30-10-1996 a Notification G.O. (Ms)40/96/HSG dated 30-10-1996 was issued in Exercise of powers under S.25(1) of the Act by amending the earlier notification G.O.(Ms) 14/ 92/HSG dated 17-3-1992. By virtue of the amendment in addition to the buildings of all churches/ mosques of all the minority religions, building of all dioceses, Arch-dioceses, monastries, convents, Wakfs and Madrasas in the State were also exempted from the provisions of the Act. It may be better to quote the relevant portion of the amended notification at this stage.