AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ashok Kumar, J.—Aggrieved over the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority holding that the second respondent is not a
public trust and therefore the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is applicable to the premises, these Civil Revision
Petitions are filed.
In all these CRPs the petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent is the chief tenant and the second respondent is the trust, owner of the
premises at No. 11, Kasi Chetty Street, Chennai-79. The tenants are in occupation of various shop portions paying a monthly rent of Rs.
10,050/= p.m., each. Except CRP. No. 1305 of 2005, in all the other CRPs, the first respondent filed RCOPs for eviction of the tenants on the
ground of willful default in payment of rents for the period from December 1997 to April 1998. As regards CRP. No. 1305 of 2005, the RCOP
was filed by the first respondent on the ground of subletting. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCOPs as not maintainable on the ground
that the petition premises is being owned by the second respondent, a public trust which is exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960. The first respondent filed Rent Control Appeals and the appeals were allowed by the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority holding that the second respondent is not a public trust and therefore the RCOPs are maintainable, that the tenants in CRP. Nos. 1298
to 1304 of 2005 have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents, that the tenant in CRP. No. 1305 of 2005 had sublet the shop portion
and ordered eviction of the tenants giving a month''s time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved over the said order, these CRPs are filed by the
tenants.
In all these CRPs the first respondent has filed the RCOPs in the capacity as the chief tenant. All these CRPs can be disposed of on a legal
question as to Whether the second respondent-Trust is a public trust or a private trust and if it is a public trust, Section 29 of the Act is applicable,
since Public Trusts are exempted u/s 29 of the said Act.
The learned Rent Controller held that the second respondent is a Public Trust and therefore the same is exempted from the purview of Section
29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. On the other hand, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority held that
the second respondent-Trust is a private trust and therefore allowed all the Rent Control Appeals.
To decide the issue a cursory reading of the Trust Deed is necessary. The Trust Deed was executed on 19.5.1938 by one Chatrasala
Venkatachellum Chetty to Venkatakrishnama Chetty. A perusal of the trust deed would show that the property, the rents, profits and the income
thereof were directed to be used and utilised for the religious and charitable purposes, more particularly set out in the grounds and conditions
provided therein. The relevant portions are:
The said Ramanujakootam shall be allowed to be used by Brahmins and Arya Vysias whenever necessary and also for religious discourses and
lectures. It shall also be allowed to be used for lodging bona fide pilgrims belonging to the said Brahmin and Arya Vysia Communities for such
temporary period as may be fixed by the Trustees. But the said Ramanujakutam shall not be allowed to be used for any dramatic or other
entertainment unconnected with any suspicious ceremonies like marriages, upanayanam, etc., and under no circumstances shall be allowed to be
used as living or residential quarters of any person.
SCHEDULE-B
(a) Mudaliyandan Monthly Thriunatchathiram at Sree Parthasarhy Temple, Triplicane at Rs. 2-2-0 annually.
(b) Annual Sathumorai of Mudaliyandan at Sree Parthasarathy Temple, Triplicane, annually.
In any event the said (a) and (b) expenses shall not exceed Rs. 80/=
(c) Nithya Karpooroa Harathi for Thirumalai Tirupathi Sree Venkateswara Swami, annually.
(d) Vedaparayana Tonnacharior Veda Patasala at Sreerangamm, annually.
(e) Argimbu at Sree Perumbudur Oodayar Sannadhi on Arudhra Mesa Thirunatchathram annually.
(f) Vysasn Thathiyarathana conducted by Arya Vysias during chitrai festival at Sree Perumbudur, annually.
(g) Vysia Thathiyarathana at Poonamallee during Sree Numbi Ootchavan, annually.
(h) Vysia Thathiyarathana at Thiruppathi, annually.
(i) Vysia Thathiyarathana for Radhasapthami at Thirupathi annually.
(j) Brahmin Thathiyarathana at Sree Villiputtur annually.
(k) Sixty measures of rice shall be given to the persons who perform Sree Rama Navami festival at Bhajanakootam in Mambalam for
Thathiyarathana, annually
(l) Pushpa Kainkaryam at Tirukachi Nambi Temple at Poonamallee annually.
SCHEDULE-C
(a) Three persons to be fed every day in any Ananda Samajam to be decided by the Board every year annually.
(b) Hundred persons, Vysias and Brahmins alternatively be fed at the said Ramanujakootam on the following occasions: at annual ceremonies of
my father S.Vankatakrishnama Chetti, my mother S. Kanakavalli Thayaramma, myself S. Vankatachalam Chetty, my first wife S. Kanavalli
Thayaramah, my second wife S. Kannavalli Thayarama, my daughter P. Alamelu Mangathayarammah, not exceeding annually.
(c) Cremation expenses for poor Arya Vysias from Rs. 7 to Rs. 15 for corpaso, annualy.
In S. Kulandaivelu Vs. Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha Namakkal, which is a case wherein the landlord-trust filed RCOP for eviction on the ground of
willful default and the Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the appellate authority also confirmed the same, aggrieved over the same in the CRP
preferred by the tenant, this Court remitted the matter to the appellate authority, who in turn found that the trust is only a private trust and the
building is not exempted from the Act. Consequently the order of eviction was confirmed. The tenant again filed CRP and this Court held that after
going through the contents of the Trust Deed, the Trust is a public trust and the building is exempted from the purview of the Act and dismissed the
petition for eviction.
Similarly in Mulla Gulam Ali and Safiabai D. Trust Vs. Deelip Kumar and Co., the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the control vested in a
group of people will not itself take away the public character of the Trust and if the Trust is not administered properly, proceedings can be filed u/s
92 of the CPC for framing a scheme for proper administration and by displacing the trustees.
In Vijayakumar v. Roman Catholic Church, rep. by Rev. Father reported in 2001 (2) LW.736, which is a case wherein the landlord society
filed a suit against the tenant for delivery of possession of the shop portion, the trial court ordered eviction and the appellate court confirmed the
order of eviction, and in the second appeal filed by the tenant stating that the landlord is only a society and not a public trust, this Court held that
the bye laws of the society are for giving benefits not to any particular group or Section but to all people of the society and that the society is a
public trust.
As far as this case is concerned, a perusal of the Trust Deed itself would show that the trust was created for charitable purposes, may be for
particular two communities. In the instant case, the Trust itself filed RCOP. No. 1638 of 2005 in the Rent Control Court. But later withdrawn the
said RCOP and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 10.11.2005. The chief tenant-first respondent himself filed I.A. No. 12385 of 1996 in
O.S. No. 11282 of 1996, which is a suit filed by him, wherein he himself described the Trust as a Public Trust. After submitting that the second
respondent is a Public Trust, now the first respondent-chief tenant contends that it is a private Trust and therefore it is within the purview of the
Act.
But as already stated a perusal of the Trust Deed would show that it is a Public Trust created for doing certain religious and charitable activities
by the trustees. Since the second respondent is a Public Trust, the rent control proceedings cannot be initiated because the building owned by the
said Public Trust is exempted u/s 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
In the result, these CRPs are allowed. Consequently, CMP. No. 3273 of 2006 is dismissed and all the other Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. No costs.