JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 66 of 2014 dated 18.09.2019 on the files of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad arose from the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 541 of 2012 dated 31.10.2013 on the files of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Palakkad. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 541 of 2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on admission. Perused the relevant materials and the verdicts under challenge. 3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court. 4. In this matter, the suit was originally filed seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room to the plaintiff, Sree Simhanatha Bhagavathy Devaswom. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 14,058/- as arrears of rent and also claimed Rs. 400/- per month as fee for damages for use and occupation from the date of termination of tenancy. 5. The defendant filed written statement and resisted the suit. The main contention raised is that the suit is not maintainable and the remedy of the plaintiff is to seek eviction as provided under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 6. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW-1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW-1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the defendant. 7. Finally, the trial court decreed the suit as under: (a) The suit is decreed. (b) The defendant is directed to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule building within 3 months from today, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the order at the costs of the defendant. (c) The plaintiff is allowed to realise an amount of Rs. 14,058/- being arrears of rent from the defendant with 6% interest per annum. (d) The plaintiff is entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. (c) The plaintiff is allowed to realise an amount of Rs. 14,058/- being arrears of rent from the defendant with 6% interest per annum. (d) The plaintiff is entitled to get rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from 01/09/2011 to 06/10/2011 and damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building after the termination of the lease also at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from 06/10/2011 till the date of giving vacant possession. (e) Plaintiff is entitled to get the costs of the suit from the defendant. 8. When appeal filed before the Appellate Court vide A.S. No. 66/2014, the Appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence and concurred the finding of the trial court. 9. At the time of admission herein, a legal question is raised by the learned counsel for the defendant regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the application of the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in the place where the plaint schedule shop room is situated. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments are exempted from the purview of provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act? (ii) Did the Courts below go wrong in granting decree ignoring any such legal bar? 10. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that in as much as exemption sought for in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint contending that the plaintiff is a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, there is no notification produced before the trial court and there is no notification available before this Court to see that the plaintiff, Sree Simhanatha Bhagavathy Devaswom, is a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in reply has placed the book, Commentary on the Rent Control Laws in Kerala, written by Bobby Mani, 2017 edition. In page No. 462, Item No. 48, the buildings owned by (1) Temples/Dewaswoms of Gowda Saraswatha Brahmins (2) Srimad Anantheswar temple, Manjeswar and (3) The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, are exempted from the purview of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as per G.O. (M.S.) 59/93/Hsg dated 19.11.1993. 12. 12. On perusal of the said notification, it is emphatically clear that the plaintiff, Sree Simhanatha Bhagavathy Devaswom, a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment is exempted from the purview of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the above provisions of the said Act have no application, in so far as the plaintiff is concerned, in view of the notification G.O. (M.S.) 59/93/Hsg dated 19.11.1993. This factual aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered holding that Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, have no application in the instant case, since the plaintiff is a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment exempted from the above provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as per G.O. (M.S.) 59/93/Hsg dated 19.11.1993. Accordingly, the suit filed at the instance of the plaintiff before the Civil Court is perfectly maintainable. 13. Coming to the second substantial question of law, it is not in dispute that the defendant is none other than a tenant in the plaint schedule shop room. Therefore, on termination of tenancy, he is bound to vacate the building. Otherwise, the plaintiff is at liberty to seek the relief of mandatory injunction to compel the legal obligation to do so. In fact, on evidence confined to that of depositions of PW-1 and DW-1, Exts.A1 to A7 and Exts.B1 to B5, the trial court rightly granted the said relief and also allowed to realize arrears of rent and fee for damages for use and occupation. The Appellate Court also confirmed the said finding. Therefore, the Courts below did not go wrong in granting decree dehors any legal bar. 14. On evaluation of materials, by addressing the rival contentions, it is held that the concurrent verdicts of the trial court and the Appellate Court are perfectly in order and the same do not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 15. In the result, this appeal is found to be meritless and the same stands dismissed. 16. All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in this regular second appeal stand dismissed. 17. 15. In the result, this appeal is found to be meritless and the same stands dismissed. 16. All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in this regular second appeal stand dismissed. 17. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant, when faced with the inevitable dismissal of this appeal, submitted that the defendant has been running a provision store in the plaint schedule shop room and he seeks a breathing period of six months time to vacate and shift the same to a convenient place. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent conceded grant of four months, on condition to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the fee for damages for use and occupation, without fail. 19. Considering the plea at the instance of the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant to provide a breathing time to the defendant to vacate the building by shifting his provision store, five months time is hereby granted on condition to deposit the arrears of rent granted as (c) relief in the decree and also on condition to deposit the fee for damages for use and occupation, at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month on termination of tenancy till this date, within a period of two weeks from today and to file an affidavit before the trial court within two weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the building without any objection on completion of five months from today. Further, the defendant shall continue to pay fee for damages for use and occupation for the grace period of five months, without fail, to avail five months time. 20. If, the arrears of rent and the fee for damages for use and occupation not deposited and the affidavit as directed failed to be filed before the trial court within two weeks from today, the period of five months granted herein shall not be available to the appellant and execution of the decree shall go on expeditiously. 21. Registry shall inform this matter to the trial court as well as the appellate court, forthwith.