The building owned by the respondent is obviously exempted from the provisions of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The same is evident by SRO Nos. 435/1992 and 769/1996 which have been upheld in Christ The King Cathedral Vs. John Ancheril [2001(2) KLT 946 (SC)]. The courts below have also concurrently found that there is a valid termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaint has been duly signed by the Chairman of the respondent and PW1 has tendered evidence on the basis of Ext.P4 authorisation.
2. I do not find any infirmity in the decree of the courts below granting eviction after terminating the lease. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal. I however grant the appellant time till 31.03.2015 to hand over vacant possession of the building to the respondent. This is subject to the condition that the appellant 2 RSA No. 1055/2014 files an affidavit in the trial court undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally on or before 31.03.2015.
3. The appellant shall file the affidavit of undertaking before 31.10.2014 and clear the entire arrears of rent. The appellant shall also continue to pay damages for use and occupation at the same rate till delivery of possession. The appellant will lose the benefit of this judgment if anyone of the conditions are defaulted. The respondent is free to apply for review of this judgment if aggrieved by the extended time granted for handing over vacant possession.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE The time for filing the affidavit of undertaking is extended upto 30.11.2014 as per order dated 19.11.2014 in I.A. No. 2860/2014.
Sd/-
Registrar (Judicial)