S. Kulandaivelu vs Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha Namakkal

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is directed against the eviction ordered by the learned

Rent Controller and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

The respondent Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha, Namakkal, represented by its President and Secretary filed the Rent Control Original Petition on

17.12.1986 against the revision petitioner for eviction from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent

from October, 1985 till the filing of the Rent Control Original Petition (11.12.1986) on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. It is stated in the petition that

H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981 filed against the revision petitioner for eviction on the ground that the petition premises is required for demolition and

reconstruction was allowed and the Rent Control Appeal was also dismissed and the matter is pending in Civil Revision Petition in this Court. It is

also stated in the petition that towards the rent for the months of December, 1981 and January, 1982, Rs.200/- was paid on 20.2.1982; the rent

for the months of February, 1982 to August, 1982 for 7 months, Rs.700/- was paid on 1.9.1982; the rent for the months of September, 1982 to

July, 1983 for 11 months, Rs.1,100/- was paid on 17.8.1983; the rent for the months of August, 1983 to October, 1984 for 15 months,

Rs.1,500/- was paid on 19.11.1984 and lastly, the rent for the months of November, 1984 to November, 1985 for 13 months, Rs.1,300/- was

paid on 9.12.1995 and thereafter from December, 1985 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition i.e. 11.12.1986, the revision

petitioner has not paid the rent and as such committed wilful default in payment of rent.

The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant in the counter admitting the tenancy from 13.12.1974 and the

quantum of rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month and also the revision petition pending in this Court against the eviction order in

H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981 and confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is further stated in the counter that the revision

petitioner was paying the rent regularly and since he refused to pay enhanced rent demanded by the respondent Sabha after filing of

H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981, the rent was paid as stated in the petition collectively without any deliberate intention and therefore, such default

cannot be construed as wilful.

Before the Rent Controller no documents have been marked on either side and the learned Rent Controller considering the oral evidence of

P.W.1, the then President of the respondent Sabha and of R.W.1, the tenant, found that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent

from December, 1985 and ordered eviction on 29.11.1991. Such order of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed in the appeal R.C.A.No.1

of 1992 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority as per judgment dated 28.7.1993. The order was challenged in C.R.P.No.3093 of 1993

and also filed C.M.P.No.5107 of 1998 to receive the registration copy of Trust Deed dated Nil relating to the respondent Sabha to show that it is

a public trust and this Court remitted the matter back to the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority directing to provide opportunity to the

landlord as well as the tenant to adduce evidence as they may think necessary in order to substantiate the nature and character of the Trust in this

case.

After such remand, the trust deed relating to the respondent Sabha dated Nil was marked as Ex.B-1 and one Soundararajan, the Secretary of

the respondent Sabha was examined as P.W.2 on the side of the respondent Sabha. Considering such additional evidence, the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority recording finding that the respondent Sabha is only a private trust and as such, it is not exempted from the purview of

the Rent Control Act and therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition is very much maintainable and confirmed the order of eviction of the learned

Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 1992 after

remand, are under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant argued considering the evidence of P.W.2 examined before the learned Rent Control

Appellate Authority and referring the terms of the trust deed Ex.B-1 that inasmuch as it is admitted by P.W.2 in his evidence that the amount

collected by way of rent is utilised both for public purpose and also for the purpose of marriages and for funeral expenses relating to the

Sowrashtra community and to conduct night school and in assisting the students for the purpose of higher technical education and to purchase

books etc., for the students and also for the purpose of establishing co-operative societies and to start new jobs to effect improvement on the field

of agriculture and business in the hand-loom and weaving sectors and to help widows and social orphans (rK:f mehijfs;) and also to attend on the

handicapped poor patients suffering from incurable disease and therefore, since the respondent Sabha fits into the definition of public trust, the Rent

Control Original Petition as filed is not maintainable. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision Ranjan

Devasahayam Vs. Hindustan Bible Institute of India, in which, this Court has held in paragraph 13:-

As the suit building is the property of a ""Trust"" coming within G.O.2000 and so the Act will not apply and the plaintiff cannot go before the Rent

Controller for the eviction of the tenant from the said building and so there is no scope at all for considering the alleged effect of the G.O. on

Section 10(3)(b) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted an unreported judgment of this Court dated 9.3.1998 delivered in S.A.No.1903 of

1997 filed by one Saravana Enterprises, represented by its Proprietrix I. M. T. Sarojadevi against Sowrashtra Sabha, Madurai, through its

Honorary Secretary, in which D. Raju, J., (as he then was) held:-

.... merely because it belongs to or it related to the members of a particular community alone, cannot be said to be a private trust.

It is seen from Ex.B-1 that the amount collected by way of rent by the respondent Sabha is utilised both for public purpose and also for the

purpose of marriages and for funeral expenses relating to the Sowrashtra community and to conduct night school and in assisting the students for

the purpose of higher technical education and to purchase books etc., for the students and also for the purpose of establishing co-operative

societies and to start new jobs to effect improvement on the field of agriculture and business in the hand-loom and weaving sectors and to help

widows and social orphans (rK:f mehijfs;) and also to attend on the handicapped poor patients suffering from incurable disease. As such, it is clear

that the respondent Sabha is a public trust in which case, the respondent sabha being a public trust is exempted from the purview of the Rent

Control Act. It follows that the Rent Control Original Petition as filed is not maintainable. Though no case was set up and specific pleading was not

taken in the counter that the respondent Sabha is a public trust and as such the petition premises is exempted from the purview of the Rent Control

Act, such stand taken by the revision petitioner/tenant before this Court is very much maintainable being the question of law and the finding

recorded by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the respondent Sabha is only a private trust and so the maintainability of the Rent

Control Original Petition in favour of the respondent Sabha cannot be said to be correct. Such finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate

Authority is to be set aside.

In the result this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 1992 by the

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1997 is dismissed as not maintainable. No cost.