Dismissed

T.M.Mathew v. Hh Baselious Marthoma Didimos - I

Kerala HC8 Sept 2010RSA/909/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second regular appeal challenged a decree for rent arrears and eviction on the ground of improper termination notice. The high court dismissed the appeal as the plaintiff proved notice issuance via postal acknowledgement, and the tenant offered no counter-evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; execution of decree stayed for two months conditional upon filing undertaking.

T.M.Mathew Vs Hh Baselious Marthoma Didimos - I — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932

¶5

RSA.NO. 909 OF 2010()

¶6

--------------------[A.S.NO.61/08 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IN OS.441/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM]

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT:

¶8

¶9

T.M.MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW,AGED 59 YEARS, K.R.WATCH COMPANY,SALES AND SERVICE,M.D.SEMINARY BUILDING,K.K.ROAD,MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR & SRI.N.AJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2/ADDL.PLAINTIFF:

¶12

¶13

H.H.BASELIONS MARTHOMA DIDIMOS-1,

¶14

CATHOLICATE OF THE EAST AND MALANKARA METROPOLITAN CATHOLICATE PALACE,DEVALOKAM,MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

---------------------------------------

¶18

R.S.A.No.909 of 2010

¶19

--------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

R.S.A.No.909 of 2010

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

Perusing the judgment rendered by the trial

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

R.S.A.No.909 of 2010

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

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.

sk/-

true copy

P.S. To Judge.

T.M.Mathew v. Hh Baselious Marthoma Didimos - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Mathew v. Hh Baselious Marthoma Didimos - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Pradeep Kumar Vs Sree Pillayar Kovil Devaswom

C.Vijayalakshmi Vs C.Gopalakrishna Menon

Kuncha Vs K.Mani

Thomas Vs Thomas @ Joy

M.P.Thomas Vs Elizabath @ Bava and Others

P.Sreekantan Nair Vs City Corporation,Tvm.