Kerala High Court
George vs Fr. Steephen on 6 March, 2025
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:19661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
RSA NO. 157 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2024 IN AS NO.55 OF 2023 OF
SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2023 IN OS NO.127 OF 2019
OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O MATHAI, RAINBOW FURNITURE SHOP, ST. STEEPHENS SHOPPING
COMPLEX, VELLAMUNDA POST, VELLAMUNDA VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670731
BY ADVS.
GAYATHRI KRISHNAN
VINAY JOHN.A.J
SHEBIN K MATHEWS
AGNET JARARD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 FR. STEEPHEN
AGED 51 YEARS
VICAR OF ST. STEPHENS KNANAYA KATHOLIC CHURCH, THETTAMALA
POST, KANHIRANGAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
PRESENT VICAR, ST.STEEPHENS KNANAYA KATHOLIC CHURCH,
PIN - 670731
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:19661
2 JOY
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O KURIYACHO, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, THETTAMALA POST, KANHIRANGAD
VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, PIN - 670731
3 P.J. JOSEPH
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, PAINATT HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA POST, VELLAMUNDA
VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, PIN - 670731
4 THOMAS
AGED 61 YEARS
THOTTIKKATTL HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA POST, VELLAMUNDA VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, PIN - 670731
5 JOSEPH
AGED 63 YEARS
MADHAVAPPALLIL HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA POST, VELLAMUNDA VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, PIN - 670731
6 THOMAS
AGED 62 YEARS
VETTUKULATHIL HOUSE, VALERI POST, EDAVAKA VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, PIN - 670731
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.158/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:19661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
RSA NO. 158 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2024 IN AS NO.54 OF 2023 OF SUB
COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2023 IN OS NO.127 OF 2019
OF MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE COURT,MANANTHAVADY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS
RAINBOW FURNITURE SHOP, ST. STEEPHENS SHOPPING COMPLEX,
VELLAMUNDA POST, VELLAMUNDA VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA- 670 731.
BY ADVS.
GAYATHRI KRISHNAN
VINAY JOHN.A.J
AGNET JARARD
SHEBIN K MATHEWS
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:19661
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FR. STEEPHEN
AGED 51 YEARS
VICAR OF ST. STEPHENS KNANAYA KATHOLIC CHURCH, THETTAMALA
POST, KANHIRANGAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
PRESENT VICAR, ST.STEEPHENS KNANAYA KATHOLIC CHURCH,
PIN - 670731
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.157/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:19661
JUDGMENT
[RSA Nos.157/2025, 158/2025]
1. These two Appeals arise from the judgment and decrees in the
suit and in the counterclaim in O.S.No.127/2019 of the Munsiff
- Magistrate Court, Mananthavady.
2. The plaintiff/counterclaim defendant is the appellant in these
Appeals. The plaintiff filed the suit against forcible eviction by
the respondents, who are the Vicar and Committee members of
the Church, which is the landlord of the plaint schedule rooms
in which the plaintiff is the tenant.
3. The defendants appeared and filed Written Statements
opposing the suit prayers. The first defendant raised a
counterclaim for eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint
schedule rooms.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the
counterclaim.
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
2025:KER:19661
5. Though the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant filed Appeals
before the First Appellate Court, the same was dismissed,
confirming the judgment and decrees of the Trial Court in the
suit as well as in the counterclaim.
6. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Gayathri
Krishnan.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Lease
Agreements are not registered. Hence, there is no question of
the expiry of the Lease Agreements. The tenancy continued as
a tenancy from month to month. In such a case, Notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is mandatory. The
Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, has not
considered the validity of Ext.A6 Notice. Ext.A6 Notice is not a
Notice terminating Tenancy in compliance with Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act.
8. I have considered the contentions.
9. The landlord-tenant relation is not disputed by the parties.
There is no dispute as to the rate of rent. The appellant took
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
2025:KER:19661
two rooms belonging to the Church on rent as per two Rent
Agreements, which were extended from time to time. The last
Rent Agreements 01.04.2017 and 01.01.2018 were produced
as Exts.B1 and B2. The said Rent Agreements expired in the
year 2018. Thereafter, Ext.A6 Notice dated 08.07.2019 was
issued to the plaintiff. The contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that Ext.A6 Notice does not satisfy the
requirement under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
as it is not specifically stated that the lease is terminated.
10. I have gone through Ext.A6 Notice dated 08.07.2019, as a
copy was handed over to me by the learned counsel for the
appellant. It is specifically stated in Ext.A6 that the Parish
council has decided to take possession of the two rooms from
the possession of the plaintiff on account of the expiry of the
lease period. It would clearly indicate the intention of the
landlord to terminate the lease. The Notice is dated 08.07.2019
and the demand is to vacate the premises by 31.07.2019. In
such a case, more than 15 days time is granted to the
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
2025:KER:19661
appellant/plaintiff to vacate the premises. Hence, I am of the
view that, even though the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court did not consider the legality of Ext.A6, on going
through Ext.A6, I am of the view that Ext.A6 satisfies the
requirements under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. I find
no reason to interfere with the judgment and decrees passed
by the Trial Court, which are confirmed by the First Appellate
Court.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
income from the business in the plaint schedule rooms is the
only source of livelihood for the plaintiff and his family.
Therefore, at least one year time may be granted for vacating
the plaint schedule rooms. Considering the fact that the
plaintiff has been conducting the business in the plaint
schedule rooms for a considerable length of time, I permit the
appellant/plaintiff to occupy the plaint schedule rooms for a
period of six months from today, subject to the conditions that
the appellant shall file an affidavit within two weeks from today
RSA NOS. 157 & 158 OF 2025
2025:KER:19661
before the Execution Court undertaking to vacate the premises
within a period of six months from today; that appellant shall
pay all the arrears of rent till today within one month from
today; and that appellant shall continue to pay the monthly rent
on or before the 10th day of every month till the date of vacating
the premises. In case of violation of any of these conditions,
respondent/landlord is free to execute the decree.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/ xx
