Madras High Court
P.Chinnanki vs P.Pethannan Chettiyar on 2 December, 2022
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
and
CMP(MD)No.4938 of 2022
P.Chinnanki ... Petitioner
Vs
Belongs to 24 Manai Telugu Chettiar's
Arulmigu Shri Pethanna Samy Tirukoil
represented by its Management Members
1.P.Pethannan Chettiyar
2.A.Natesan Chettiyar
3.A.Nagendran Chettiyar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227
of the Constitution of India, to allow this civil revision
petition challenging the judgment and decree dated
29.04.2022 in RCA No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Principal
Sub Court, Thirumangalam confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.11.2020 in RCOP.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the
Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court,
Thirumangalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankarganesh
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed as against the
judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 in RCA No.2 of 2021
passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/
the Principal Sub Judge, Thirumangalam confirming the
judgment and decree dated 27.11.2020 in RCOP.No.9 of 2016
passed by the learned Rent Controller / Principal District
Munsif, Thirumangalam.
2.The petitioner is the tenant of the suit schedule
property, which belongs to the respondents' temple.
They entered into a rental agreement dated 28.07.2004 and
rent was fixed as Rs.600/- per month and advance was fixed
as Rs.20,000/-. While so, the respondents filed a petition
in RCOP.No.9 of 2016 before the Rent Controller,
Thirumangalam for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds
of wilful default and own use and it has been allowed in
favour of the respondents/ land lords. Aggrieved over the
same, the petitioner/ tenant has filed an appeal before the
Rent Controller Appellate Authority, Thirumangalam and the
appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present
civil revision petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the land lord / respondents filed the petition
under Sections 10(2)(i), 20(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(v) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for
eviction. Since it is a temple property and it belongs to a
public trust, as per G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home Department dated
12.08.1974, there is an exemption granted to the temple
trust under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and therefore, the proceedings
under this Act will not apply and only the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 will Apply.
When the lands lords have not proved the grounds on which
the eviction petition was filed, the courts below ought not
to have passed orders in favour of the respondents /
landlords. Therefore, the civil revision petition has to be
allowed.
4.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that
the respondents' temple and its properties are administered
by a private trust. As per the government order in
G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department dated 16.08.1976, the
exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was granted only to the
public trust and not to the private trust and therefore,
the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is maintainable.
Further, the tenant has not paid the rent from the month of
January 2016 till the date of filing of the eviction
petition. Both the courts considering the above grounds,
have rightly passed the orders. Hence the tenant has to
vacate the property.
5.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
6.The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent
temple's property and he is running a petty shop in the
temple premises by way of an agreement dated 28.07.2004.
Initially rent was fixed as Rs.600/- per month and later it
was increased to Rs.700/- and advance amount of
Rs.20,000/- was paid. The tenant himself has admitted that
from the month of January 2016, he has not paid the rent.
The main ground raised by the petitioner is that as per the
government order in G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home Department dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
12.08.1974, there is an exemption granted to the temple
trust under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the proceedings under this
Act is not maintainable and proceedings has to be intimated
only under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act.
7.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to
Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960, which reads as follows:
"22. Exemptions-Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, the Government may, subject
to such condition as they deem fit, by notification,
exempt any buildings or class of buildings from all
or any of the provisions of this Act"
As per the powers provided in the above provision,
the government of Tamil Nadu exempted all the buildings
owned by the Hindu, Christian, Muslim and Charitable
institutions from all the provisions of the Act by way of
government order in G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home Department dated
12.08.1974. However subsequently, another government order
in G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department dated 16.08.1976 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
issued by the government of Tamil Nadu in supersession of
the earlier government order dated 12.08.1974, confined the
exemption to all buildings owned by Hindu, Christian,
Muslim and Public Trusts and Public Charitable Trusts.
Thus it is clear that the exemption granted under
G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department dated 16.08.1976 is only
applicable to public trust and the same has been further
clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Kandasamy
Chettiyar vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in
AIR 1961 SC 1731.
8.Now the point to be considered is whether the
respondent trust is a public trust or not?. In order to
substantiate that the respondents' trust is not a public
trust and it is a private trust, the respondents have
relied on ExP6, dated 24.03.1997 which is a registered
trust deed in the name of the temple. On perusal of the
trust deed shows that the respondents' trust is a private
trust and it belongs to a particular community. Therefore,
the respondents / landlords can very well maintainthe
proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 and hence, the ground raised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
petitioner / tenant in respect of the maintainability of
the petition is not acceptable.
9.Further the petitioner has also raised a ground that
the landlords have not substantiated their claim for own
use / occupation for eviction. Perusal of the records shows
that when the land lords claimed that they need the
property for establishment of statue of lord Anjaneya, the
petitioner/ tenant did not deny the same nor he made any
attempt to cross examine the land lords / respondents to
disprove the same. Therefore, this ground raised by the
petitioner before this Court is also not acceptable.
10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the
appellate authority and accordingly, this civil revision
petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition also stand dismissed.
02.12.2022
Index: Yes/No.
dsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
To
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/
The Principal Sub Judge,
Thirumangalam.
2.The Rent Controller /
The Principal District Munsif,
Thirumangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.1215 of 2022
02.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
