Madras High Court
Kawarlal Baid Charitable Trust vs M/S. Dhanalakshmi Jewellers India (P) ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P. (PD) No.2158 of 2022
1.Kawarlal Baid Charitable Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
K.Vijaylal Jain,
Son of late. Kawarlal Jain
2. Kawarlal Manoribai Baid Trust
K.Vijaylal Jain
Son of Late Kawarlal Jain
No.27, Raghunayakula Street,
Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Dhanalakshmi Jewellers India (P) Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Vinod Kumar
Son of Late. Mangilal
No.118, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai – 600 079. ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 25.04.2022 passed in
RLTOP Sr. No.6514 of 2021 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/9
Causes, Chennai and consequently, direct the Registrar, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai to number the petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.L.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr. R.Mohan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to set aside the order of learned Rent Controller / X Judge, X Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 25.04.2022 made in R.L.T.O.P. Sr. No.6514 of 2021.
2. The revision petitioners are the petitioners who have filed the original petition for eviction of the respondent from petition mentioned property on the ground that the respondent failed to enter into a written agreement and continue to occupy the premises even after the termination of tenancy and for demolition and reconstruction. The said petition was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.
3. Mr. M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Rent Controller had chosen to reject the petition filed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/9 revision petitioners by recording a finding that the petitioners will come under Section 3(d) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence the Act is not applicable to them; the petitioners of the original petition who are the revision petitioners herein are trustees representing their respective trust; the demised property is said to be the property belonging to the trust in which the respondent is a tenant; as per Section 3 (d) of the Act only those trusts which are registered under Indian Trust Act, 1982, are exempted but the petitioners' trusts are charitable trust and for which the exemption under Section 3(d) of the Act will not be applicable; the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the applicability of Section 3(d) of the Act and non-suited the revision petitioners to maintain the petition filed by them before the Rent Court for revision.
4. The petitioners are the trusts and they are being represented by its their respective managing trustees. From the trust deed produced for perusal, it is seen that both the trusts are involved in charitable and religious activities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/9
5. The Tami Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 exempts certain religious and charitable institutions and any trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1982. The exclusion as stated under Section 3 (c)(d) of the Act would read as under:
“3. Nothing in this Act shall apply to:
a...
b..
c. Any premises owned by religious or charitable institutions as may be specified by the Government, by notification;
d. any premises owned by Waqf registered under the Waqf Act, 1995 or to any trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.”
6. Though Section 3(c) of the Act speaks about certain religious and charitable institutions, the said charitable institutions should have been specified by the Government by a notification. Section 3(d) of the Act would relate to those trusts registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1982. But the subject trusts are no doubt are religious and charitable trusts. The trust deed of the respect petitioners would also read that the object of the trust is to undertake religious and charitable activities. The trusts formed for doing charitable and religious activities will be governed under Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. If the intention of Section 3(d) of the Act is to include the religious and charitable trusts also, there would not have been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/9 the said clause under Section 3(c) of the Act which speaks about the religious and charitable institutions. Section 3(c) of the Act qualifies the premises owned by religious and charitable institutions which are notified by the Government. But in the case in hand, the demised premises which belongs to the charitable trust was not the property notified by the Government in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act.
7. The corresponding provision in the old act (Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960) which would give exemption to certain buildings from the purview of the Act is stated under Section 29 of the old Act. For the sake of convenience Section 29 of the Old Act is extracted hereunder:
“ 29.Exemptions: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditinos as they deem fit, by notification, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
8. In this regard, the Government has also issued a notification in G.O.(Ms) No.1998, Home dated 12.08.1974 which reads as under:
“No.II (2)/HO/3811/74 – In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/9 Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christianand Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the said Act.” Notification in G.O.Ms. No.2000, Home, Dated 16.08.1976 reads as under:
“[No.II(2)/HO/4520/76 - In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 29 of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil nadu Act XVIII of 1960) and in supersession of the Home Department Notification No.II(2)/HO/3811/74, dated the 12 th August, 1974, published at page 444 of Part II – Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the 21 st August, 1974, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act.”
9. The above notifications would exempt the buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts. However, the above notifications were not reissued under Section 3 of the new Act. So long as there is no notification issued to cover the demised premises which is the property of charitable trust, it cannot be claimed that the demised property is exempted from the application of the Act. As stated already, the exemption under Section 3(d) of the Act is applicable only to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/9 those premises owned by Wakf registered under the Wakf Act, 1995 or any premises owned by any trust registered under Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Even though the petitioner trust is also a registered one, it is a religious and charitable institution. Hence, it has to be seen in the light of Section 3(c) of the Act. Since Section 3(c) of the Act would apply only if the Government specifies by notification exempts the buildings belonging to religious and charitable institutions to that effect.
10. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer the earlier order of this Court in a similar issue in the case of Sri Chandraprabhu Maharaj Juna Jain Mandir Trust Vs. Abdul Azeez, in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1426/2022 dated 27.04.2022. In the said case, the Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee, has also dealt with the similar issue and held that since no notification was made under Section 3(c) of the Act, the building belonging to a charitable trust cannot be exempted from the purview of the Act.
11. Since the learned Rent Controller did not take into consideration of the absence of issuance of notification similar to the notification issued under Section 29 of the old Act, the order of X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is liable to set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/9
12. In result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and fair and decreetal order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.L.T.O.P. Sr. No.6514 of 2021 is hereby set aside. No costs.
16.08.2022 bkn To:
X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8/9 R.N.MANJULA, J., bkn C.R.P. (PD) No.2158 of 2022 16.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9/9