Madras High Court
)Regis Fernandez vs The Catholic Mission ... on 23 February, 2021
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
Angley Ammal Feranandaz (died)
1)Regis Fernandez
2)T.Rani Rayan
3)S.Aro Morals
4)P.Mable De Mel
5)I.Thibusius Fernandez
6)M.Augustine Xavier
7)G.Consulath Lopez
8)I.Engene Fernandez
9)I.Kennedy Fernandez ... Petitioners
vs.
The Catholic Mission Tiruchirappalli,
Rep by the Procurator
Bishop House, St.Mary's Cathedral,
Contonment,
Post Box No.14,
Tiruchy-1. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the fair and
decreetal order passed in RCA.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
Sub Court, Trichy, dated 07.10.2017 confirming the fair and decreetal
order passed in RCOP.No.224 of 1991 on the file of the 1 st Additional
District Munsif Court/Rent Controller, Trichy, dated 21.08.2006.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sekar
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
ORDER
The revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal
order passed in RCA.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Trichy, dated 07.10.2017 confirming the fair and decreetal order
passed in RCOP.No.224 of 1991 on the file of the 1st Additional District
Munsif Court/Rent Controller, Trichy, dated 21.08.2006.
2.The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of
the petition mentioned property and the deceased petitioner namely,
Angley Ammal Feranandaz was the tenant at Door No.17/2, Convent
Road. The tenanted premises consists of 12 houses and the petitioner is
one of the tenants under the respondent from the year 1955 and she is
paying a rent of Rs.150/- per month and Rs.10/- towards water tax.
According to the petitioner, she had been regularly paying the rent
without any arrears. In the first week of July 1991, the agents of the
respondent refused to collect the rent and therefore, the petitioner had
sent the rent by money order which was returned as refused and
therefore, the petitioner had sent a legal notice through his counsel to the
respondent requesting for the bank details so as to deposit the rent for
which, there was no reply and therefore, the petitioner left with no other
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
remedy, filed the present petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') for permission to deposit the rent into the court.
3.The respondent filed counter stating that the respondent is a
religious institution as such the provisions of the Act, will not be
applicable for making deposit under the Act. The rent controller
dismissed the rent control original petition as not maintainable holding
that as per GO 2000, the petition mentioned property is exempted from
the Act, against which, an appeal was filed. Pending appeal, the tenant
Angley Ammal Feranandaz died and her legal heirs were brought on
record. The rent control appellate authority also concurring with the
views of the rent controller, dismissed the appeal. As against the
concurrent finding, this revision petition is filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the
Courts below ought not to have dismissed the application under Section
8(5) of the Act as not maintainable, by mainly relying upon the
photocopies of Exs.R5 and R7 which are certificate of registration and
bye-law of the society, as those documents are only secondary evidence
as per the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, he would pray to set aside the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
impugned orders of the Courts below.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent would state that the
Courts below finding that the respondent is a public religious institution,
as such, the petition mentioned property is exempted under the Act, have
rightly dismissed the petition to deposit the rent. Thus, he would state
that the interference of this Court is not necessary.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondent.
7.Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent for a
monthly rent of Rs.150/- and a sum of Rs.10/- towards water tax. The
only issue to be decided in this matter is whether the petition to deposit
the rent under Section 8(5) of the Act is maintainable or not. The
respondent would state that it is a Catholic Mission Diocese,
Tiruchirappalli, and it is a public charitable institution as per G.O.2000
and the petition premises is exempted from the Act, but the
petitioner/tenant would state that the respondent is not charitable
institution, but it is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act and would state that it was neither public religious trust
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
or public religious institution and therefore, the G.O cited by the
respondent is not applicable to the petition mentioned property.
8.Perusal of record shows that Ex.R1 is the copy of the decree in
A.S.No.69/2001, Ex.R3 is the plaint copy in O.S.No.132/2004. RW4 is
the copy of the written statement and Ex.R5 is the first page of the
certificate of Registration of Societies Act and Ex.R6 is the certificate
copy of registration and Ex.R7 is the bye-law of the respondent and
Ex.R8 is the petition in I.A.No.52/2000 in O.S.No.2383/1991 and Ex.R9
is the order copy filed for the interlocutory application and Ex.R10 is the
lease termination notice issued by the respondent. Ex.R1 was filed by
the respondent against the petitioner herein in connection with the suit in
O.S.No.2383/1991. O.S.No.2383/1991 was filed by the respondent to
evict the petitioner from the petition mentioned property. That suit was
dismissed by the trial Court and against the decree and judgment, an
appeal in A.S.No.69/2001 was filed and the same was also dismissed.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the civil court rightly held that
the eviction of the petitioner under General Civil Law is not applicable.
Before filing the said suit, the respondent herein issued a notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court and the
appeallate court came to a conclusion that notice issued under Section
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
106 of the Transfer of Property Act is a defective one and so the appeal
suit was dismissed. In Ex.R1- copy of the decree in A.S.No.69/2001,
nowhere it is stated by the civil court that general civil law is not
applicable to the eviction of the petitioner herein. Ex.R8 is the copy of
the interlocutory application and that application was filed by the
petitioner to call for the respondent to submit his reply with regard to the
three questions raised by the petitioner. The first question was whether
the respondent and plaintiff raised any objection to deposit the rent in
HRCOP.No.224/1991 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli,
as to its jurisdiction. Since other two questions were not related to this
application, that were not considered. Ex.R9 is the reply filed by the
respondent where, it has been observed that RCOP.No.224/1991 is
maintainable or not has to be decided by the concerned rent controller
alone.
9.The issue to be decided is whether the petitioner/tenant was
entitled to pursue the rent control proceedings. The respondent counsel
has relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 254 between
C.S.Robert and another vs. M.Kanagappan and others, wherein, it has
been held that when church was constructed and consecrated by a Arch
Bishop, the Church and its property would be vest with the Arch Bishop.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
In that case, it was an admitted fact that the church was consecrated by
the Arch Bishop and the amount mobilized from the public christian and
therefore, this Court has come to the conclusion that the church is the
public church and vested with Arch Bishop.
10.In a judgment reported in 2001 2 MLJ 1 SC between Mulla
Gulam Ali and Safiali D Trust vs. M/s.Deelip Kumar and Company, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
''The object of the Trust is relevant criteria. The
control in respect of administration of true vested in a group
of people belonging to one family does not take away public
character of the trust object of trust are to give donations to
educational and charitable institution to give scholarship to
poor and deserving students to give medical aid, and
assistance in deaf and dump, widows, destitute, orphone etc
is a public trusts.''
11.In the present case on hand, the respondent institution have
number of colleges and schools in and around the Tiruchirappalli Town
and within Tiruchirappalli District. In Ex.R7 bye-law, the normal
activities of the society is described as follows:-
''7.Normal Activities of the Society
Activities of the society in furtherance of its objects
are:
i. Churches and chapels
ii. Primary, Middle high school and
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
Hr.Sec.Schools
iii. Industrial, Technical, Agricultural and Training
Schools
iv. Colleges, Hostels Boarding Houses,
Orphanages or any similar institution.
v. Poor houses, founding Homes, Nurseries,
Hospitals dispensaries etc.
vi. Clubs, Libraries, Reading rooms, House
cooperative societies, Agricultural or Industrial Settlements
etc.
vii. Assistance during natural calamities such as
drought, fire, floods, cyclones etc.
viii. Development and welfare of the people
especially the down-trodden
ix. Rural development
x. Economic and community development
xi. Welfare of the physically handicapped
xii. Women Welfare
xiii. Welfare of the displaced persons
xiv. Promotion of nonformal and adult education
xv. Providing of Health Care facilities
xvi. Provision of civic amenities for tourists and
pilgrims and
xvii. Such other activities incidental to the
organisation and working of the Society and for the proper
management of its affairs.''
12.On perusal of the above normal activities of the respondent
institution, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it is a public
trust and as per GO 2000, the petition mentioned property is exempted
under the Act and therefore, dismissed the petition under Section 8(5) of
the Act, stating that it is not maintainable. Even the procedure
enumerated under Section 8(5) of the Act was not followed correctly and
on that ground also, the learned Judge dismissed the application. In my
opinion, since the respondent is held to be a public trust, there is no need
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
to go into the procedure to be followed under the Act. The rent controller
and the rent control appellate authority have rightly held that the
respondent is a public trust and the petition mentioned property is
exempted under the Act, as such, the petition under Section 8(5) of the
Act is not maintainable, where, I do not find any infirmity.
13.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
bala
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1)The Principal Sub Judge,
Trichy.
2)The 1st Additional District Munsif Court
Rent Controller, Trichy.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.242 of 2021
DATED : 23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
