Kerala High Court
Prabhakaran vs Sree Simhanadha Bhagavathy Devaswom on 17 October, 2024
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 1 2024:KER:77301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/25TH ASWINA,1946
RSA NO. 43 OF 2023
JUDGMENT DATED IN AS NO.151 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT IV, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.295
OF 2012 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
BHAGYALAKSHMI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.NATARAJAN,
D.NO.14/503, (OLD NO.7/529), BHAGYA FANCY,
OPPOSITE KRISHNASWAMY IYER PARK, THAREKKAD,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
P.USHAKUMARI
RISHAD KOCHERY
DEEPA. P.R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 SREE SIMHANADHA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD.678001., REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING COMMITTEE PRESIDENT T.G.NARAYANASWAMY
(DIED), AGED 92 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA IYER,
GOPALAKRISHNA FARMS, KARUKAMANI, POLPULLY,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
2 M.A.KRISHNAJI, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.T.K.SUBRAMANIA IYER, PRESIDENT, MANAGING
COMMITTEE, SREE SIMHANADHA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
R/A: GEETHA SADAN, THAREKKAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 2 2024:KER:77301
BY ADVS.
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN P B
P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994)
SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998)
B.ANUSREE(K/000951/2016)
MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
MEERA P.(K/000191/2019)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, ALONG WITH RSA.721/2020, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 3 2024:KER:77301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/25TH ASWINA, 1946
RSA NO. 721 OF 2020
JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2019 IN AS NO.135 OF 2013 OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ,PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2013 IN OS NO.283 OF 2012 OF
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
PRABHAKARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MUTHU,
D.NO.14/504,(OLD NO.7/530),SUMA
ELECTRICALS,OPPOSITE KRISHNASWAMY IYER
PARK,THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD-678001.
BY ADV P.USHAKUMARI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 SREE SIMHANADHA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
THAREKKAD,PALAKKAD-678001,REPRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENT,MANAGING COMMITTEE
T.G.NARAYANASWAMY(DIED).
2 M.A.KRISHNAJI, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O SUBRAMANIA IYER,GEETHA SADAN, THAREKKAD
VILLAGE,PALAKKAD-678001.
BY ADVS.
P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 4 2024:KER:77301
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, ALONG WITH RSA.43/2023, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 5 2024:KER:77301
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the tenants of the same landlord
who is the defendant in the suits and hence both these
appeals are considered together. The respondent/landlord,
which is the Devaswom, filed the suits for recovery of
possession of plaint schedule buildings, contending that the
plaint schedule buildings are tenanted premises occupied by
the defendants in the suit. The Trial Court decreed the suits
directing the defendant to surrender the vacant possession of
the plaint schedule buildings within a time frame and also
directed to pay arrears of rent and future rent. The appeals
filed by the defendant in both suits were dismissed. The
judgment in O.S. No.295/2012 from which RSA No.43/2023 is
filed as ex-parte one. The judgment in O.S. No.283/2012,
from which RSA No.721/2020 is filed, is a contested one.
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri.Usha
Kumari and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent,
Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, instructed by Adv.Sri.Anusree.B.
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 6 2024:KER:77301
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Munsiff's Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit
as the court which has jurisdiction is the Sub Court as per
Section 6(6) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951 which is applicable to the plaintiff. The
learned counsel also submitted that the permission of the
Assistant Commissioner under the HR & CE Act is required for
filing an eviction suit seeking to vacate the tenants from the
tenanted premises.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent cited a
judgment of this Court in RSA No.265/2020 in which the
appeal filed by another tenant of the respondent against the
decree for eviction was dismissed. The learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that the contentions raised in the present
appeal are covered by the judgment in RSA No.265/2020.
The learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the
said judgment stating that the Notification which is considered
by this Court in RSA No.265/2020 is the Notification which is
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 7 2024:KER:77301
issued under Section 25 of the Kerala Building (Lease and
Rent Control) Act and not the Notification which is published
under HR &CE Act and hence the said judgment is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. It is clear from Section 93 of the HR & CE Act that the court
referred in Section 6(6) of the Act is intended for adjudication
of dispute with respect to the administration and management
of a religious institution and matters connected therewith. The
bar of suit provided under Section 93 of the said Act does not
include the suit for eviction filed by a religious institution. The
next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the
permission of the Assistant Commissioner is required for filing
a suit for eviction.The learned counsel pointed out that as per
Section 29, the sanction of the Commissioner is required for
filing a suit for eviction. On going through Section 29, it
provides that the sanction of the Commissioner is required
only for the purpose of exchange, sale, or mortgage and any
lease of immovable property belonging to any religious
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 8 2024:KER:77301
institution. It does not in any way require the sanction for filing
an eviction suit. The First Appellate Court has relied on Ext.A6
certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Malabar
Devaswom Board stating that the plaintiff is a public religious
institution coming within the purview of HR &CE Act which is
under the supervisory control of the Malabar Devaswom
Board. The First Appellate Court also referred to the
Notification G.O.(MS) No.59/93/HSG dated 19/11/1993 which
provides that the building owned by Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments have been exempted from the
operation of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act. Hence, I find that the suit for eviction filed
by the plaintiffs is perfectly maintainable, and the Trial Court,
as well as the First Appellate Court, considered the matter in
the right perspective and arrived at the right conclusion. I do
not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgments.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants sought a period of one
year time to vacate the premises, which was strongly opposed
RSA NOs.43/2023 & 721/2020 9 2024:KER:77301
by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, pointing out
that in RSA No.265/2020, this Court had granted only a period
of five months. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case I deem it fit to grant a period of six months to the
appellant in both the appeals to vacate leased premises
subject to the conditions that the appellant shall clear the
arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of the judgment; that he shall file an
undertaking before the Execution Court within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment that
he will vacate the leased premises within a period of six
months from today and that the appellant shall further continue
to pay the rent till the date of vacating the premises. If any of
the said conditions are violated, the Execution Court can
proceed with eviction proceedings. The Regular Second
Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
ncd
