Arulmighu Kabaleeswarar Temple vs Subbulakshmi

T.V. Masilamani, J.—The revision petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1994 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam dated 7.9.1995 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1993 in O.P.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the

District Munsif, Tiruvarur.

The revision petitioner is the landlord/appellant in appeal before the Subordinate Judge. The respondent is the tenant/respondent in the said

proceedings and filed the petition u/s 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act in the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur for a direction to the

landlord to sell the site wherein he has constructed the building. On the contrary, the revision petitioner/landlord resisted the petition by filing the

counter. After analysing the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by both sides and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel,

the learned District Munsif allowed the petition directing respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,100/- within three months from the date of

the order towards the cost of 451 sq.ft. in the demised property upon which the respondent has put up the super structure as tenant under the

petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam and after perusing the records and hearing both sides,

the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the order passed by the learned District Munsif and dismissed the appeal accordingly. Hence the

revision.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the outset that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits under the provision of

the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996) in view of the amendment to the proviso by

inserting proviso (f) to sub-Section (3) of Section 1 which came into force from 5.1.1996. The said proviso runs as under:-

Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to tenancies of land owned--

(a) .. ..

(b) .. ..

.. .. ..

(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.

(B) ""RELIGIOUS CHARITY"" means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religions character (including a Wakf

associated with a religious festival or observance of religions character), whether it is connected with any religions institution or not.

Every proceedings 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 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 the section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceedings in which a decree or order passed has been

executed or satisfied in full before the said date.

Relying on the said provision of law introduced by the amending Act 2 of 1996 with effect from 5.1.1996, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner has contended that since the demised property belonged to the revision petitioner, viz, Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Temple represented by

its Executive Officer being a religious institution (i.e.,) a temple within the meaning of the said term under Clause (A) referred to above, inasmuch as

the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge have not become final, the proceedings initiated by the respondent

under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act shall abate and shall not be enforceable as per the said provision of law inserted by the

amending Act.

On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that since the respondent has deposited the amount as per order

passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, inasmuch as the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam

was dismissed, the said decision has become final and that therefore in view of the proviso to the definition ""religious charity"" referred to above

under Sub-clause (B) to the explanation under clause (f) to the proviso u/s 1 inserted as per the amending Act 2 of 1996, the said exemption

cannot be claimed by the revision petitioner. Hence, he has urged that since the decree has been executed in full before coming into force of the

said amending Act 2 of 1996 on 5.1.1996, inasmuch as the revision was filed long thereafter (i.e.,) on 6.5.1996, the revision petition has to be

dismissed holding that the landlord is not entitled to the exemption provided thereunder.

In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited the decisions (1) NARAYANAN CHETTIAR v. ALAGAR THEVAR

1974 (II) M.L.J. 386; (2) PUDUKKULAM @ KUTTIKULAM VAHAYARA TRUST v. T.KAMALAMBAL 1988 1 L.W. 187; (3) K.R.

Shankar Raj Vs. State Bank of India, Vellore Branch, ; & (4) THE SAGAR MAHILA VIDYALAYA v. PANDIT SADASHIV RAO HARSHE

& OTHERS 1991 2 L.W. 660 to fortify his arguments. While applying the principles laid down in the said decisions, this Court is of the

considered view that the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as per Section 9(3)(a) of the Act, the final orders will have to

be passed either directing the landlord to execute the conveyance to the tenant and directing the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the

remaining extent or if the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, dismissing the application itself. Hence, he has contended

rightly in my opinion that in this case, the decree has not become final for the simple reason that the conveyance deed had not been executed by the

landlord in favour of the tenant under the said provision of law, inasmuch as the landlord has come forward with this revision petition questioning

the decisions rendered by the appellate Court as well as by the trial Court in this regard. It is in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that the facts in the cases decided in 1974 (II) M.L.J. 386 and 1988 1 L.W. 187 are entirely different and therefore, the ratio laid down

therein is not applicable to the present case.

Similarly, in the case considered in K.R. Shankar Raj Vs. State Bank of India, Vellore Branch, , the question was with reference to recording

full satisfaction of the decree by the executing Court when the defendant deposited the entire decretal amount in Court after giving notice to the

plaintiff and therefore it was held therein that the Court was bound to record full satisfaction. On the contrary, in this case even when the decree

has not become final, it cannot be said that the same has been fully satisfied by depositing the amount as per the direction of the trial Court. Hence,

the above ratio is also not applicable to this case.

Similarly, the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in 1991 2 L.W. 660 was with reference to the confirmation of the sale and vesting

of title in the auction purchaser in the course of the execution proceedings under Order 21 of the C.P.C. Therefore, it is clear that the question

under consideration in this revision is entirely different from that of the one raised before the Apex Court in the said case and hence it follows

necessarily that the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the present case.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has therefore relied upon the decision DHAKSHINAMOORTHY.S.P. AND 2 OTHERS v.

SRI KAMAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE 1996 1 L.W.502 to draw support for his contention that the subsequent event in passing of the amending

Act 2 of 1996 will have to be taken into account while disposing of this petition and that since the proceedings is deemed to be pending till the

decree or order is fully satisfied, the petitioner herein is entitled to the exemption provided under the amending Act. The ratio in the decision as laid

down therein in paragraph 13 reads as follows:-

In this connection, it may be worthwhile to note that in view of the subsequent event, i.e., passing of Act 2 of 1996 has also some relevance in this

case. Even though the defendant claims the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act, being a Temple land, provisions of that Act have been

exempted in so far as the Temple lands are concerned. That subsequent event also will have to be taken into consideration while disposing of the

appeal.

Thus, in view of the provision added by the amending Act 2 of 1996 inserting Clause (f) to Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants

Protection Act, 1921, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings instituted by the respondent as a tenant in respect of the land owed

by the revision petitioner, a religious institution should be held as abated and determined by operation of statute.

Though the learned counsel for the respondent has raised yet another contention that the proceedings initiated by the respondent was not

pending on the date of the coming into force of the said amending Act and that therefore the provisions contained thereunder cannot be invoked in

favour of the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that since the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court have not become final,

inasmuch as the revision petition has been filed before this Court, it cannot be said that the proceedings has come to an end. It necessarily follows

that the same should be held as pending on the date of publication of the amending Act and hence the contention put forth on behalf of the

respondent has to be heard to be rejected.

For the above said reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the fair and decretal orders passed by the lower appellate court

and the trial Court. The respondent will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by him in the trial Court. However, there will be no order as

to costs.