Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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/

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/ 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.

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/ 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.