Telangana High Court
Sudesh Kumar vs M/S. Shivdat Rai Educational ... on 17 November, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
C.R.P.Nos.1851 and 1856 of 2024
Common Order:
1. Heard Mr. Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant/respondent and Mr. Murli Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent/respondent/petitioner.
2. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in RCA Nos.33 and 34 of 2023, both dated 23.04.2024, wherein the said appeals were dismissed confirming the orders dated 31.10.2023 of the I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RC Nos.51 and 43 of 2017 respectively. The learned Appellate Court in RCA No.51 of 2017 confirmed the order of eviction against the petitioner herein and directed to handover the physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent within two months of the date of order. Further, in RCA No.43 of 2017, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of fixing of ::2::
fair rent at Rs.6,000/- per month and directed the petitioner to pay the same with enhancement of 5% for every year.
3. Since the parties, suit schedule property and grounds pleaded are one and the same, both the Civil Revision Petitions are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken objection to the very maintainability of the proceedings under Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') as there is a bar of jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Act exempting certain buildings from the provisions of the Act by way of gazette notification. The Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.622, dated 04.05.1960 wherein the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh has exempted all buildings, godowns, etc., belonging to Hindu Charitable Institutions from the provisions of the Act. Said plea was raised in the appeal but the same was not considered by the Appellate Court ::3::
and proceeded to dismiss the appeal confirming the order passed by the Trial Court.
5. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.4318 of 2009 dated 28.01.2022, wherein a reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.622, dated 04.05.1960 and came to conclusion that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case as endowment property does not fall within the purview of the Act. Further, reference is made to order of this Court in case between Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman of Secunderabad and Hyderabad and others v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyd. and others 1 at paragraph No.15(2), wherein, it is held that Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 is applicable to all the charitable institutions regardless of any religion. It is argued that the respondent herein is an educational charitable trust and therefore, squarely covered by the 1 2000 (1) ALD 482 (DB) ::4::
order of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman (1 supra). In C.R.P.No.3885 of 2006, this Court held that the charitable and religious institutions were regulated by Hyderabad Endowment Regulations prior to enactment of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 which covers every transfer of property made for religious purpose or charity or public utility other than estate granted subject to rendering of services.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a specific ground was raised before the Appellate Court about the maintainability of the eviction petition before the Trial Court as charitable trust property does not come under the Act but no reasoning is given by the Appellate Court for not considering the same. In view of aforementioned, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the eviction petition before the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
::5::
7. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the G.O.Ms.No.622 was passed in the year 1960 whereas the respondent charitable trust was constituted prior to 1950. It is argued that there is no clarity about the applicability of the new Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.622 retrospectively to charitable trusts established before 1960 and therefore, exemption is not applicable to the respondent charitable trust. Further, it is argued that the exemption of provisions of the Act does not mean absolute bar of maintainability of the proceedings before the Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, it is argued that both the eviction petition and appeal are perfectly maintainable and suffer with no infirmity. Also, it is argued that the objection as to maintainability was not taken before the Trial court but was taken for the first time before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has rightly discarded said objection.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ::6::
case between Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal 2, wherein, it is held that jurisdiction of a Court can be classified into several categories and important categories are 1) Territorial or local jurisdiction, 2) Pecuniary jurisdiction and 3) Jurisdiction over subject matter. It is further held that as far as territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, the objection has to be taken at the very first instance whereas with respect to subject matter jurisdiction, the objection can be taken at any stage as the Court has no subject matter over the jurisdiction to take up the case or the matter. Therefore, any decree passed by a Court without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity and therefore, can be challenged even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.
9. In view of the legal ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2 supra) there is a need to determine whether the Trial Court 2 (2005) 7 SCC 791 ::7::
and the Appellate Court had subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the parties herein. It is admitted by the revision petitioner that respondent is a charitable trust. However, the same is private charitable trust which was established prior to the year 1950. In that context, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Section 26 of the Act is not applicable to the respondent. In view of the contention of the petitioner, there is a need to examine Section 26 of the Act and the same is extracted and produced below:
"Section 26: Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Government may by notification in the Telangana Gazette, exempt, subject to such conditions and terms, if any, as they may specify in the notification, any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act."
10. Further, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 26 of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.622, dated 04th May, 1960, making Section 26 applicable to all the buildings, go-downs etc., belonging to religious and charitable institutions in the State. Under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious ::8::
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 or the Endowment Regulation, 1349 Fasli, a similar question arose in the case of Jamia Nizamia v. M.A.Sattar Khalidi 3, wherein this Court held as follows:
13. As per the Government order vide GOMS.No.575 dated 12-05-1960 (Ex.R9) all the buildings, go downs belonging to Muslim religion and Charitable Institutions in the State were exempted from the operation of the Provisions of Act, 15 of 1960. As per the record, it is quite clear that the petitioner herein obtained exemption under Section 80G of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institution. It is not the case of the tenant that the petitioner is a Wakf as observed by the first appellate Court. When the landlord obtained exemption of payment of Income Tax on the ground that it is a Charitable Institution, they cannot initiate proceedings under the Rent Control Act i.e., Act 15 of 1960 as such, the Rent Controller ought not to have entertained the cases filed by the landlord.
Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petitions questioning the order of Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad are liable to be dismissed."
11. In the same way just as Muslim religion and Charitable Institutions were exempted vide G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 12.05.1960, the other religions and charitable institutions which were governed by Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 or the 3 MANU/TL/1859/2024 ::9::
Endowment Regulation, 1349 Fasli, are exempted under Section 26 of the Act. Once the building is exempted from applicability of the provisions of the Act, the question of maintainability of rent control case before the Rent Controller does not arise due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly appeal is also not maintainable before the Appellate Court i.e., the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed for.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders dated 31.10.2023 in RC Nos.51 and 43 of 2017 before the Trial Court and the judgments dated 23.04.2024 in RCA Nos.33 and 34 of 2023 before the Appellate Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Date: 17.11.2025.
GVL/GVR ::10::
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Civil Revision Petition No.1851 and 1856 of 2024 Date:17.11.2025 GVL/GVR