Madras High Court
Ramdas vs Kaliamoorthy (Died) And Anr. on 11 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)CTC122, (2004)4MLJ240
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
ORDER T.V. Masilamani, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant, who is the appellant before the Appellate Authority. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) before the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Sirkali against the subtenant, who is the petitioner herein.
2. The Learned Rent Controller, agreeing with the contentions on two grounds, passed an order of eviction holding that the subtenant committed willful default and that the chief tenant needs the premises for his own occupation. As against the said order, the subtenant/the petitioner herein preferred the rent control appeal before the Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority), Mayiladuthurai. Having gone through the evidence and records and upon hearing both sides, the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. As against the fair and final order of the learned appellate authority, this revision petition has been preferred by the subtenant/petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the out set that the premises belongs to the Vellore Devasthanam, which is a religious trust within the meaning of G.O.Ms. 2000, Home (Accommodation Control), which exempts such buildings from the purview of Act 18/1960 and in view of the decisions in N.S. Sivaprakasam v. M. Munuswamy Naicker, and R.V. Srinivasan v. S. Jayabalan, 1987 (1) MLJ 317, the rent control proceedings are not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has adverted my attention to the additional grounds raised before the appellate authority in paragraph 10(a) in the appeal grounds to the effect that in view of the said G.O. and the decision in R.V. Srinivasan v. S. Jayabalan, 1987 (1) MLJ 317, the rent control proceedings are not maintainable and that in spite of such a ground being raised in the appeal, the learned appellate authority did not render any finding on that aspect of the matter.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has however urged this Court to render a concurrent finding in view of the ratio laid down in Muthuswami Naidu v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Home Department and Anr., 1977 (90) L.W. 45, by a Division Bench of this Court that the classes of buildings have alone been determined in the said G.O. and exemption was granted only in favour of the buildings owned by public and religious trusts. Therefore he has urged that since the landlord is not before the Court in any of the proceedings inasmuch a the dispute is between the chief tenant and the subtenant, the revision petition is not maintainable.
6. On a careful consideration of the ratio laid down in Muthuswami Nadu v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Home Department and Anr., 1977 (90) L.W 45, it is seen that this Court, while considering the validity of G.O.Ms. No.98, Home, dated 12.8.1974, exempting all buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Act 18 of 1960, has held that the G.O. exempting such buildings is valid. On facts it appears that the said case differ from that of the case under consideration.
7. Therefore, it follows that the ratio laid down in R.V. Srinivasan v. S. Jayabalan, 1987 (1) MLJ 317, squarely applies to this revision and it runs as follows :-
"A mere reading of Section 29 of the Act clearly indicates that it is open to the Government to exempt any building or class or buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act. The section itself makes it clear that what is exempted is either a building or a class of buildings. There is no reference at all to any category of landlords who could be brought within the Section 29, no doubt, when the above G.O. has been passed, as has been observed by this Court in Muthuswami Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1977 (90) L.W. 45, the class of buildings that have been exempted have been fixed or determined only in addition to the class of landlords that owned the buildings. It is, therefore, clear that all buildings owned by the public trusts and public charitable trusts of the religious denominations mentioned in the G.O. come within the exemption. Ultimately, when the classification of certain types of buildings as coming within the exemption is made though the classification is initially made with reference to the landlords who owned those buildings, when the exemption is made, it is only the buildings that are exempted and not any particular class of landlords. The exemption would attach itself to the buildings so long as the buildings continued to be owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts. The exemption runs with the buildings so long as it is owned by any one of the categories mentioned in the G.O."
Hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect has to be upheld. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated under The Tamil Nadu Act 18/60 is not maintainable.
8. Thus the revision petition is allowed setting aside the final and decreetal orders passed by the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Mayiladuthurai in RCA No. 23 of 1993 and dismissing the petition in RCOP No.2 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sirkali. However, there will be no order a to costs.