Kerala High Court
Deepak Poojara vs Shri Navaneet Krishna Mandir on 13 September, 2024
2024:KER:70245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/DECREE DATED 26.02.2020 IN OS
NO.30 OF 2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5 IN OS 30/2018:
1 DEEPAK POOJARA,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O LATE PRATAP POOJARA,
H. NO.CC7/2085
(OLD NO. 8/1906),
NAVNEET KRISHNA TEMPLE COMPOUND,
GUJARATI ROAD,
KOCHI - 682002
2 NARESH POOJARA,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O LATE PRATAP POOJARA,
H. NO.CC7/2085
(OLD NO. 8/1906),
NAVNEET KRISHNA TEMPLE COMPOUND,
GUJARATI ROAD,
KOCHI - 682002
3 VINOD POOJARA,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE PRATAP POOJARA,
H. NO. CC7/2085
(OLD NO. 8/1906),
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
2
NAVNEET KRISHNA TEMPLE COMPOUND,
GUJARATI ROAD,
KOCHI - 682002
4 BHARAT KUMAR POOJARA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O LATE PRATAP POOJARA,
H. NO. CC7/2085
(OLD NO. 8/1906),
NAVNEET KRISHNA TEMPLE COMPOUND,
GUJARATI ROAD,
KOCHI - 682002
BY ADVS.
AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
SAJAN MANNALI
SANTHI K.PAI
HARITHA K.T.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3 IN OS 30/2018:
1 SHRI NAVANEET KRISHNA MANDIR,
PALACE ROAD,
KOCHI - 682002,
REPT. THROUGH THE PRESIDING DEITY OF
LORD NAVNEET KRISHNA,
REPT. BY SHRI. COCHIN VAISHNAV MAHAJANA,
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHETHAN D SHAH,
S/O DWARKADAS SHAH,
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 6/2001,
KAMADENUAPPARTMENT,
CHAKKAMADAM, KOCHI-,
PIN - 682002
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
3
2 COCHIN VAISHNAV MAHAJAN,
REGISTRATION NO. ER204/77,
PALACE ROAD,
MATTANCHERRY,
KOCHI - 682002
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY CHETHAN D SHAH,
S/O DWARKADAS SHAH,
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 6/2001,
KAMADENUAPPARTMENT,
CHAKKAMADAM, KOCHI-,
PIN - 682002
3 HARSHAD VITHAL DAS MADANI,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O VITHALDAS MADANI,
FORMER SECRETARY,
COCHIN VAISHNAV MAHAJAN,
RESIDING AT BLOCK DS-LAXMI APARTMENTS,
GUJARATHI ROAD,
KOCHI,
PIN - 682002
R1 TO 43 BY ADVS.
JAYASREE K.P.
JOHN JOSEPH(K/000875/2019)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
4
JUDGMENT
1. The defendants in a suit for recovery of possession,
arrears of rent, and damages are the appellants in this
appeal. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant
died.
2. The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendants 2
to 5 to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule
property within three months, failing which the plaintiffs
are allowed to recover possession of the same through
the process of the court at the expense of the defendants.
The defendants are also directed to pay the arrears of rent
at the rate of Rs.250/- per month for the period from
01/02/2015 to 30/04/2017 with 9% interest and damages
for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs.250/- per
month from 01/05/2017 till the property is surrendered or
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
vacated.
3. Though the defendants 2 to 5 filed an appeal before the
First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court.
4. The 1st plaintiff is a Temple, and the 2nd plaintiff is a
Society, which claims that the 1st plaintiff is in the
management of the 2nd plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff is the
Secretary of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaint schedule property
is a building bearing No.7/2085. It is shown as a part of a
lane situated in the land comprised in survey No.456/2
and 455/2 of Mattancherry village.
5. According to the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff came into the
management of the properties of the 1st plaintiff as per
Ext.A4 release deed of the year 1977. From the date of
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
Ext.A4, the 2nd plaintiff is the custodian of the 1st plaintiff
temple as well as its properties and has been managing
and controlling the affairs of the temple and its properties.
One Madhavadas Jayaraam, who is the father-in-law of
the 1st defendant took lease of the plaint schedule
building. The 1st defendant is the mother of the defendants
2 to 5. After the death of Madhavadas Jayaraam, the
defendants are continuing the tenancy arrangement on
the same terms and conditions as statutory tenants and
the monthly rent is Rs.250/-. The 1st plaintiff, being a
religious institution, is exempted from the provisions of the
Building Lease and Rent Control Act as per Notification as
GOMS 22/1999 dated 16/04/1999 of the Government of
Kerala. Though Lawyer notice dated 12/05/2017 was
issued terminating the lease and demanding vacant
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
possession, the defendants refused to comply with the
demand in the lawyer notice and hence the suit was filed.
6. The defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit contending inter
alia that the 1st plaintiff temple was constructed by a Priest
named Vaishnava Mahajan during the early 19th century.
Certain properties were acquired by the said Priest.
During 1920, the said priest brought people from Gujarat
to stay in the property. The late grandfather of the
defendants was one of the members who migrated to
Cochin and who was given accommodation in the temple
compound free of cost. In essence, the defendants
disputed the landlord's tenancy relationship with the
plaintiffs.
7. The plaintiffs amended the plaint incorporating the
pleading to the effect that the property in which the plaint
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
schedule building situated in 97 cents of land in survey
No.456 is covered by Ext.A3 Purchase Certificate issued
by the Kanayannur Taluk Office.
8. The defendants filed an additional written statement
denying the averments in the amended complaint and
challenging the authority of the second plaintiff to file the
suit for and on behalf of the first plaintiff.
9. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Sajan
Mannali and the learned counsel for the respondents Smt.
K. P. Jayasree.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there is nothing in evidence to show that there is any
landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the
defendants. The learned counsel submitted that the 2nd
plaintiff does not have any authority to manage the affairs
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
of the 1st plaintiff and as such the suit is not maintainable.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that there is sufficient evidence to
prove the tenancy arrangement. In fact, the defendants
have admitted the tenancy arrangement in Ext.A20 Letter.
Ext.A4 would reveal that the property is entrusted with the
2nd plaintiff for management. All the original records with
respect to the plaint schedule property were produced by
the plaintiffs in the suit. Those records came into the
possession of the 2nd plaintiff since the 2nd plaintiff has
been managing the affairs of the temple.
12. On going through the documents produced in the suit,
Ext.A4 refers to another document of the year 1915. The
1915 document was executed in favour of a spiritual guru
of the 2nd plaintiff Sri. Madhusoodan Lalji Maharaj with
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
respect to the management of the temple and its
properties. Even though the said document is not
produced, the details of the said document is there in
Ext.A4 document. By Ext.A4 document, the management
of the temple is handed over to the 2nd respondent society
by the successor spiritual Guru. It is stated in Ext.A4 that
the temple was constructed by the 2nd plaintiff. The
original purchase certificate was obtained by the 2nd
plaintiff society. The same was produced before the Trial
Court and it is marked as Ext.A3. The land tax, as well as
building tax with respect to the property, is also regularly
paid by the 2nd plaintiff, as revealed from Exts. A5, A6
and A7. Ext.A8 ownership certificate also shows the name
of the 2nd plaintiff.
13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
that the 2nd plaintiff is a defunct society, Ext.A15 dated
29/03/2019 shows that the registration has been renewed.
The defendants produced Ext.B1 photograph showing a
Board in the temple premises in which another committee
by name Navneet Krishna Mandir Committee is shown as
the Committee managing the temple. The learned counsel
for the appellant argued that the 2nd plaintiff is not the said
Committee. The learned counsel for the respondents
pointed out that the name of PW1 is shown as the
Secretary in the said Board. It appears that the Navneet
Krishna Mandir Committee and the 2nd plaintiff
Committee are one and the same. If there was another
Committee, nothing prevented the Secretary of the 2nd
plaintiff from filing suit in the name of the said Committee.
14. Ext.A20 letter proves that the defendants have
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
demanded the plaintiffs to do certain repairs in the
building. In Ext.A20 it is specifically stated that the house
is taken on rent. In view of the Ext.A20 admittedly issued
by the defendants, the defendants could not contend that
there is no tenancy arrangement between the plaintiffs
and the defendants. Even though the defendants
contended that they got the property for occupation free of
cost, no documents with respect to the same are
produced. Specific pleadings are also absent with respect
to the starting point of the said permissive occupation.
15. The monthly rent claimed by the plaintiff is Rs.250/- per
month. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate
Court, found that Rs.250/- is the monthly rent payable by
the defendants as the defendants did not adduce any
evidence in this regard.
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
defendants have been occupying the plaint schedule
building since the year 1929, and the defendants were
born brought in the said building, and hence, they may be
given at least two years to vacate the premises. The
learned counsel for the respondents opposed that said
prayer, stating that the defendants have adopted all sorts
of activities to prevent the delay in the disposal of the
proceedings. She pointed out that the suit is of the year
2018.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
deem it fit to grant one year's time to vacate the premises
2024:KER:70245
RSA NO. 359 OF 2024
by the defendants.
19. Hence this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed without
costs. At the same time, the defendants are allowed to
continue occupation in the plaint schedule building for a
period of one year from today on a condition that they
shall file an undertaking before the Execution Court on or
before 30.09.2024 that they will vacate the premises
within one year from today; on further conditions that they
shall clear the arrears of rent and damages as on today
within a period of one month from today and that they
shall pay the monthly compensation of Rs.250/- on or
before 10th day of every month till the date of vacating the
premises.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, JUDGE
sms
