Madras High Court
M/S.Sattar Sanitary Stores vs Merit Education Trust on 21 December, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25055 of 2019
M/s.Sattar Sanitary Stores,
Represented by its Proprietor
Abdul Rahim
No.9, Vanier Street,
Chennai – 1. .... Petitioner
Vs
Merit Education Trust,
By its President, Vice President
Secretary-cum-Treasurer and Trustees :
1. H.M.Anwar Basha
2. C.Abdul Mallick
3. M.Khaliq Basha
4. M.Zahoor Ahmed
5. P. Ahmed Basha
6. M. Noorul Ameen
7. M. Farook Ahmed
Hakeem Zakuddin (Deceased)
8. M.Nisar Ahmed
P.Noor Ahmed (Deceased)
9. M.Muneer Ahamed
10. P.Ismail Akbar
Having their office at No.54,
Sydenhams Road,Chennai – 600 003. .... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to admit and allow the Civil Revision Petition, set aside
the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in un-numbered E.A.Sr.No.49418 of
2019 in E.P.No.1159 of 2019 in O.S.No.1896 of 2002 on the file of the IX
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.J. Raja Kalifullah
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Thenmozhi
For respondents : Mr.J.Ram
for Mr.K.M.Kodaiarasu
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in un-numbered E.A.Sr.No.49418 of 2019 in E.P.No.1159 of 2019 in O.S.No.1896 of 2002 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby rejected the application filed under Section 47 of CPC.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents for ejectment in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the respondents, they owned the suit property and the income from the suit property is being used for imparting and promoting secular and 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 Religious (Deeniyath) Education among the public. They are running and maintaining three educational institutions. The petitioner is one of the tenant occupying non-residential portions in the suit schedule property. He is occupying one terraced premises admeasuring 2313 sq.ft., one trussed shed admeasuring 2205 sq.ft. and one rear side premises admeasuring 315 sq.ft in the ground floor of the suit schedule property. The petitioner has been paying rent of Rs.3600/- to the respondents. He is also not regularly paying the rent. The suit property has become very old and dilapidated and poses danger to the passers by and as well to the occupiers. The respondent Trust is a Public Religious and Charitable Trust and they are exempted from the purview of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 16.08.1976. After execution of notice, the respondents filed a suit.
3. The petitioner filed a written statement and had taken a specific stand that the suit property has been vested in the hands of the Trustees and in the same breath, the Trust Deed recites that it is Wakf name. If the suit property is a Wakf, it should have to be notified in the Gazette 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 under the provisions of the Wakf Act and G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 16.08.1976 would apply only to notified Wakfs and not otherwise. The respondents Trust, admittedly being not a notified Wakf under the provision of the Wakf Act, cannot claim exemption under G.O.Ms.No.2000. Therefore, the petitioner, being a statutory tenant, is entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
4. The Trial Court concluded that whether the suit property is a Public Trust or Private Trust, the petitioner admitted that he is one of the tenancy under the respondents Trust. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would not apply to the suit premises and the respondents rightly filed a suit for ejectment by terminating the lease. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, in which the following points arose under consideration :- ?
6/ jPht ; f [ ;Fhpa gpur;ridfs;
1/ thjp bghJ mwf;fl;lis vd;w
tiuaWf;Fs; cs;s mikg;g[ ,y;iyah ?
2/ thlif xg;ge;jj;ij uj;J bra;J.
fhyp RthjPdj;ij xg;gilf;f ntz;Lbkd;W
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
thjpahy; gpujpthjpf;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;s rl;l
mwptpg;g[ bry;yj;jf;fJ ,y;iyah ?
3/ jhth brhj;jpy; cs;s fl;olk;
kpft[k; gGjile;J cs;sjh ?
4/ tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPh;g;g[
; ut[ bra;aj;jf;fjh ?
kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghiz ePff
5. The Appellate Court concluded that though the Trial Court did not frame any issue whether the respondents Trust is a Trust or Wakf, the petitioner herein admitted that he is a tenant under the respondents Trust. The Appellate Court also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2012 SCC 2362 in the case of Maharastra States Board Wakf Vs. Shake Yusuf Bai Challa and concluded that the respondents Trust is not Wakf property and it is a public Trust created for Education, society and Islamic Religion purpose. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable for ejectment and dismissed the appeal suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred second appeal in S.A.No.1200 of 2014 and the same was also dismissed by this Court by a Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2014. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
6. Pending second appeal, the petitioner made a specific request to vacate and hand over the suit premises to the respondents and sought six months time. Considering the said request, this Court granted time to the petitioner till 09.06.2015 for vacating and handing over possession of the suit property to the respondents, without driving him to initiate the execution proceedings. This Court also directed him to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the same and the respondents filed execution petition in E.P.No.1159 of 2019 for delivery of possession. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a Review Petition No.61 of 2015 before this Court and the same is pending. In the execution petition, the petitioner again filed a petition under Section 47 of CPC raised very same question of law, which were already raised by him before the Appellate Court. In the said application, the following substantial question of law raised by the petitioner :-
a) Whether the decree passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff Trust, which is not a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act and which is not a legal entity and a juristic person who can either sue or be sued, or can the decree obtained in the said suit be executed or enforced ?6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019
b) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit when admittedly no permission was obtained from the T.N.Wakf Board before filing the suit when it is admitted that the suit property belongs to a Wakf and vested in favour of another Trust ?
c) Whether the Courts below are right in ordering eviction without deciding the nature of Trust, especially when the defendants have specifically raised this issue and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit, without considering that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2000 of 1976 dated 16.03.1976, buildings owned by Private Trusts are governed by the Rent Control Act and only buildings owned by Public Religious Trusts and Public Charitable Trusts are exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act ?
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court, while hearing the review application, directed the Registry to post the review application along with the S.A.No.396 of 2012, which was filed by another tenant and raised the same question of law. Both the review application and the second appeal are pending.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 submit that the said second appeal in S.A.No.396 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11.04.2022 for the reason that nothing survives in the said second appeal, since the suit property is no more in existence and the land has also been taken possession of the respondentss. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the review application is directed to club with the S.A.No.396 of 2012. Therefore, the Court below rightly rejected the application filed under Section 47 of CPC raising very same grounds. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner raised substantial question of law under Section 47 of CPC, which is not permissible, since, the substantial questions of law arises only in the second appeal. Already the same substantial questions of law raised in the S.A.No.1200 of 2014 and the same were decided as against the petitioner by this Court by an order dated 09.12.2014.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in un-numbered E.A.Sr.No.49418 of 2019 in E.P.No.1159 of 2019 in O.S.No.1896 of 2002 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner shall vacate and 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 hand over possession of the suit property within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
21.12.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Lpp To The IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 Lpp C.R.P.No.3815 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.25055 of 2019 21.12.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis