Madras High Court
Radha Bai vs Sri Gangatheeswarar Devasthanam, ... on 3 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)2MLJ320, 1996 A I H C 4752, (1996) 2 MAD LJ 320 (1996) 2 MAD LW 537, (1996) 2 MAD LW 537
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
ORDER AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the respondent Devasthanam, filed an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The trial court and the lower appellate court have dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and also the appeal filed by the tenant. The tenant has now preferred the above revision against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1989 of the IVth Additional City Civil Court, Madras, in C.M.A. No: 144 of 1988.
2. During the pendency of the above revision Act 2 of 1996 was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu called the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force at once. Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922 was amended (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). In Sub-section (3), in the first proviso, after Clause (e), the following clause was added, namely:
(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause-
(A) "religious institution" means any-
(i) temple;
(ii) math;
(iii) Mosque;
(iv) church; or
(v) other place by whatever name known, which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, any community or section thereof as a place of public religious worship;
3. Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996 runs thus:
3. Certain pending proceedings to abate- Every proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall, in so far as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate, and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall in so far as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, cease and determine and shall not be enforceable.
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date.
Section 3 of the amendment Act contemplates that every proceeding instituted by a tenant (petitioner herein) in respect of any land owned by any religious institution (respondent herein) or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall, abate and all the rights and privileges which may have accrued to the tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall in so far as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act (Act III of 1922) as amended by the present Act 2 of 1996 cease and determine and shall not be enforceable.
4. Admittedly the instant proceedings was initiated by the petitioner herein, who claims to be a tenant in respect of the land owned by the religious institution, namely, the respondent temple. Section 3 of the Amendment Act also provides that the amendment Act is applicable to any matter falling within the scope of the principal act, as amended by Act 2 of 1996, in respect of the land belonging to the temple shall abate. However, the amendment has made it clear that nothing contained in Section 3 of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding, since the decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date.
5. The Act as it now stands applies to tenancy of lands owned by religious institutions and religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian and other religion also. It was considered by the State Government that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act II of 1922 (The Madras City Tenant's Protection Act. 1921) to which the landlord can be forced to make a sale of the land leased out to a tenant would not be in the interest of the religious institutions and the religious charities and that it is not desirable to allow lands belonging to the religious institutions and religious charities which have been endowed by the devotees to be taken away from them by the tenants. It is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996, the amendment Act has been introduced with a view to enable such religious institutions and religious charities to get reasonable income from their urban properties and also to exempt such such tenancies of lands owned by such religious institutions and religious charities from the provisions of the said Act, with necessary abatement provision. The amendment Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Issue No. 643. dated 10.11.1994 at pages 519 to 521. Since the proceedings initiated by the tenant in respect of the land in question owned by the respondent religious institution was binding as the proceedings relates to matter falling within the scope of the principal Act as amended by Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996. in respect of such land shall abate. Therefore, in view of Section 3 of the Amendment Act the petitioner/tenant shall cease to have any right and privilege that may be accrued to him in respect of the land in question and subsisting immediately before the amendment Act. The right claimed by the tenant under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922) cannot be claimed or continued any further. The civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.