R.V. Srinivasan vs S. Jayabalan on 25 November, 1986
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 :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)N. Muthuswami Naidu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 15 July, 1976
"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."
N.S. Sivaprakasam vs M. Munuswamy Naicker on 7 January, 1982
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.
1