Madras High Court
C.Shubramani @ Sivasubramanian vs M.Vadivel on 11 August, 2018
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 18.02.2021
Date of Order 13.05.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
CRP (PD)(MD)No.2781 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.12138 of 2018
1.C.Shubramani @ Sivasubramanian
2.S.Selvi : Petitioners/Appellants/
Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
1.M.Vadivel
2.V.Radhika : Respondents/Respondents/
Respondents/Petitioners
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the
Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, in RCA No.10 of 2017, dated
11.08.2018 and subsequently declare that the Rent Control Court
do not have subjective jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition filed in
RCOP No.40 of 2013.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.K.Samy
For Respondents : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, in RCA No.10 of 2017, dated 11.08.2018 and subsequently declare that the Rent Control Court do not have subjective jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition filed in RCOP No.40 of 2013.
2.The respondents/landlords filed RCOP No.40 of 2013 before the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, for eviction against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not pay the superstructure rent for the period between 01.05.2011 and 31.08.2013 and the superstructure is needed for starting their own business. The petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller, Dindigul and filed an application in I.A No.37 of 2015 praying to decide the subjective jurisdiction to the Rent Control Court, Dindigul and the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the main RCOP under the Act, has to be framed and decided. The Rent Controller, on 25.11.2016 allowed the said I.A No.37 of 2015 in RCOP No.40 of 2013. Against which, the petitioners herein filed RCA No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the Trust was created for worshiping by the public and hence, the Trust is not a Private Trust and hence, the Government Order in G.O(Ms) No.2000, dated 16.08.1976 is applicable to the properties, donated by the executor since the aim of the executor was for charitable and public purpose and without permission from the Trust established for charitable purpose, the construction of superstructure by the respondents/landlords is illegal and there is no locus standi to the respondents/landlords to file a petition under section Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the right denied by the respondents/landlords by way of probate of so-called Will, does not given any new right to the respondents/landlords, when the declaration suit filed by the petitioners/tenants in O.S No.640 of 2002 attained finality and the probate of Will does not give right of property, since the objective of probate of Will does not decide over the property right of the Trust and prays that the Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted that the maintainability of the RCOP can be raised and decided in the main case, which is summary proceedings and the petitioners/tenants cannot claim any exclusive right under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 without admitting any evidence to show that the rental premises let out to the religious purposes and prays that the Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted the decisions reported in (2001)6 SCC 176 (Christ The King Cathedral Vs. John Ancheril) and 2009(1) CTC 779 (Dhanasekaran Vs. The A.R.C School Board).
6.It is settled law that all the buildings owned by the Public Trust and Public Charitable Trust of the religious denomination are exempted from the purview of the Rent Control. Reference can be made to the decisions of this court in Ramdas Vs. Kaliamoorthy (died) and another [2004(4) MLJ 240 : 2004(3) CTC 122. A building owned by a public religious and charitable institution is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The Act will not apply, if the trust is a Public Trust. From the judgment made in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 CRP No.182 of 1003, dated 17.04.1935, one thing is very clear that Shri Kanniga Parameswari Amman Chathiram is not a temple and it is only a Chathiram or Choultry. Admittedly, the Trust Deed has not been filed.
7.In the case of Dhanasekaran Vs. A.R.C School Board reported in 2009(1) CTC 779, while explaining the scope and difference between the statutory exemption under section 30 of the Act and exemption granted under Section 29 of the Act, after extracting G.O.Ms. No.2000, dated 16.08.1976, issued in exercise of the power under Section 29 of the Act and Section 10(3)(b) of the Rent Act, at Paragraphs 10 and 11, held as follows:-
“10.On a cumulative reading of the provisions of the statute and the Government Order, it could be seen that the Act per se applies to residential and non-residential buildings owned by religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions. After making the Act per se applicable, the Act confers powers under Section 29, upon the Government, to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. In contra distinction to Section 29, the exemption under Section 30 is actually a power conferred upon the Government to grant exemption to certain types of buildings to which the applicability of the Act, is not in question. In other words, there is a distinction https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 between the exemption under Section 29 and the exemption under Section 30.
11.Keeping this distinction in mind, if we look at the Government Order issued, the Government Order extracted above, exempts only buildings belonging to two types of Trusts, namely (i)Public Charitable Trusts and
(ii)Religious Public Trusts of Hindu, Christian and Muslim Faiths. It is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the building in question is exempt from the very apparition of the Act under Section 30. The contention of the petitioner is that the building falls within the exemption category by virtue of the Government Order issued under Section 29.
Therefore, in order to bring the building in question, within the purview of the exemption provided under the Government Order extracted above, it must be established that the landlord, invoking the provisions of the Act, is either a public charitable trust or a religious public trust or Hindu, Christian or Muslim Faiths. A reading of Section 10(3)(b) shows that the provision applies to religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions. Section 10(3)(b) does not deal with religious public trusts or public charitable trusts of the kind indicated in the Notification issued by the Government under Section 29. Therefore, if a Trust takes recourse to the Act for evicting a tenant, it should be established by pleadings and by evidence that such a landlord is either a public charitable trust or a religious public trust within the meaning of the Government Order issued under Section 29. In this case, the petition for eviction as well as the counter filed by the tenant, does not disclose that the revision/landlord would fall under either of the two categories, namely, public charitable trust or religious public trust. Therefore, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 cannot be contended that the exemption under G.O.Ms.No.2000, is patently exhibited on the basis of the pleadings, so as to enable the petitioner/tenant to raise it as a point for the first time at the stage of revision. In the decision relied upon the learned counsel, a copy of the trust deed was marked as exhibit and there was overwhelming oral evidence to show that it was a public charitable trust. But in this case, there is absolutely no pleadings of evidence to show that it is a public charitable or pubic religious trust and hence the plea cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of revision. Hence, the first contention is rejected.
8.Coming to the instant case on hand, during the pendency of the RCOP petition, the petitioners have filed a petition in I.A No.37 of 2015 in RCOP No.40 of 2013 raising a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of RCOP. The learned Rent Controller, by order, dated 25.11.2016 held that at the initial stage, the issue with regard to applicability of the Rent Control Act to religious institutions cannot be decided and it can be only decided after letting evidence, the said issue can be decided. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. This court is of the view that the findings of the both the authorities do not require any interference of this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8
9.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the question, whether the court has jurisdiction to try the case in the main case itself and dispose of the case, purely on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.05.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9 To,
1.The Rent Controller/ The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.
2.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 T.KRISHNAVALLI.J., er CRP (PD)(MD)No.2781 of 2018 13.05.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/