IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 909 of 2010()
1. T.M.MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW,AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. H.H.BASELINS MARTHOMA DIDIMOS-1,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :08/09/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
R.S.A.No.909 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the tenant of a shop room. Suit was
one for recovery of arrears of rent. The tenancy and also the
rate of rent was not under challenge. Arrears of rent was
claimed in the suit filed in 2001 for the period from August,
1996. Repelling the challenges raised by the tenant, the trial
court decreed the suit with arrears of rent as canvassed by the
respondent/plaintiff. The first appellate court, in the appeal
preferred by the tenant, modified the decree varying the
arrears of rent limiting it to the three year period prior to the
institution of the suit. Eviction ordered by the trial court was
confirmed.
2. In the present appeal, challenging the
concurrent decision rendered by both the courts below, with
the first appellate court modifying the period for arrears of
rent, the only challenge canvassed by the tenant is that there
was no proper termination of the tenancy issuing a valid
notice.
R.S.A.No.909 of 2010
:: 2 ::
3. Perusing the judgment rendered by the trial
court, wherein the contentions raised by the appellant to
resist the suit claim has been summed up it is seen, the
challenge with reference to the termination of the tenancy was
raised contending that the tenant did not receive the
advocate’s notice alleged to have been issued by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, over and above leading oral evidence in support
of his case that a notice was issued terminating the tenancy,
also exhibited a copy of the notice and postal
acknowledgement of its receipt, bearing the signature of the
tenant. As against the evidence tendered by the plaintiff,
there was no counter evidence. The tenant did not even
mount the box to swear in support of his case that he did not
receive the advocate’s notice issued by the plaintiff
terminating the tenancy.
4. When that be the case, the challenge raised
against the decree granted by the trial court in granting the
relief is meritless. Appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.
R.S.A.No.909 of 2010
:: 3 ::
The learned counsel for the appellant/tenant, after
dictation of the judgment, as above, sought for indulgence of
this court to have an extended period to vacate from the
building, to hand over vacant possession to the
respondent/plaintiff. The tenant is stated to be operating a
business in the shop room. Considering the submissions
made by the counsel, there will be a direction that the
impugned decree shall not be executed for a period of two
months from today, subject to a condition of the appellant
filing an undertaking before the court below, within a period
of three weeks from today, that he shall unconditionally
surrender vacant possession, and discharge the entire arrears
of rent up to the date of surrender within the above period of
three months.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/-
true copy
P.S. To Judge.