Madras High Court
The Tiruchirappalli Consumer vs / on 24 October, 2024
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
S.A.(MD)Nos. 868 & 869 of 2008
The Tiruchirappalli Consumer
Co-Operative Wholesale Stores,
Rep. By its Special Officer,
No.12/17, E.V.R.Road, Pudur,
Trichy. ... Appellant in
both the Appeals
/Vs./
The Church of South India
Trust Association, Trichy-Thanjavur Diocese,
Rep.By its Authorised Agents,
1) Rev.Dr. Sureshkumar,
S/o.Albert,
Arockiasamy Diocese Treasurer.
2 Rev.S.Thilak Samuel
S/o.Solemn Pandian, Clerical Secretary.
(Both Having at Pudur, Trichirappalli). ...Respondents in
both the Appeals
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.Nos.153 & 154 of
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2007 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli,
dated 30.10.2007 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.Nos.916 of 2001 & 504 of 1998 on the file of the Learned
Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 30.10.2006.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.R.Devaraj, for R-1 & R-2
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and
Decree passed in A.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2007 on the file of the Learned
Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 30.10.2007, confirming the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.Nos.916 of 2001 & 504 of 1998 on
the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, dated
30.10.2006.
2. The defendant is the appellant herein and the plaintiff is
the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as plaintiff and the defendant. Since the issue involved in the
second appeals are one and the same this Court is inclined to pass this
common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.Nos.504 of 1998 &
916 of 2001 to direct the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession
and for awarding damages for wrongful occupation for a period from
01.01.1993, till delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 12 of the
Civil Procedure Code. The said suit was allowed. Against the same, the
defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S. Nos.153 & 154 of 2007 and the
same were dismissed. Against the same, the present two second appeals
are preferred by the defendant.
4. At the time of admission, the second appeals are admitted
on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Courts below right in law in holding that the
Respondent Association is a public Trust and entitled to
benefits of the notification under G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home
16.08.1976 exempting the provision of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in the
absence of any positive and acceptable evidence
especially when the Respondent Association is registered
under Indian Companies Act?
2. Whether the Courts below are right in not adverting to the
lease under Ex.A.1 and the same would be termed as
yearly lease and as such notice under Ex.A.1 is not a valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act?
3. Has not the Courts below committed an error in law in not
considering that a company registered under Section 91 of
Companies Act claim themselves as a public trust and has
not answered whether the company can be termed as a
public trust?
5.The 1st substantial question of law raised is whether the
plaintiff is Trust, hence exempted from the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and entitled to the benefits
of exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home 16.08.1976. The
contention of the plaintiff is that they are Trust, hence they are exempted
from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 based on the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home 16.08.1976. When the
Trust is exempted, then the appropriate remedy to evict the tenant is suit.
In order to prove the plaintiff is Trust the plaintiff had relied on Ex.A.9
Articles of Association and Ex.A.18 Rules and Regulations of the Trust.
Under Ex.A.9, the Home of the Church was described which is extracted
hereunder:
“Nkw;nrhd;d murhizapd;gb ghh;f;Fk;NghJ ,e;J>
fpUj;Jt> K];yPk; kjnghJ mwf;fl;lis vd;wpUf;Fk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jUzj;jpy; jkpo;ehL thliff; fl;Lg;ghl;Lr; rl;lj;jpd;
fPo; kD jhf;fy; nra;af;$bajy;y vd;gJk; tof;fhf
jhf;fy; nra;af;$banjd;gJk; njhpatUfpwJ.
10. thjp epWtdk; nghJ mwf;fl;lis epWtdk;
vd njhptpjJ jhth tof;Ffis jhf;fy; nra;Js;sJ.
nghJ mwf;fl;lis vd;gij epUgpf;Fk; tifapy; thjp
epWtdj;jpy; Fwpg;ghiz kw;Wk; Articles of Association
th.rh.M.8 vd jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. mjpy; thjp
epWtdk; vd;d Nehf;fj;jpw;fhf Muk;gpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;gJ
Fwpj;J gphpT 3y; $wg;gl;Ls;sJ.”
On perusal of the same, it is seen that the Church was created for
carrying out various charities, hospitals, dispensaries and colleges etc.
From this, it is evident that the Appellant herein is a Trust, consequently
the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.2000 is applicable to them. Therefore, the
said suit is maintainable. Accordingly, the 1st substantial question of
law-1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
6. The 2nd substantial question of law is under section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act notice is mandated and under Ex.A.1 six months
notice is mandated for terminating the lease. It is seen that the plaintiff
had issued lawyer notice dated 23.01.1998 and the same was received by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the defendant on 28.01.1998, then the defendant had replied on
18.02.1998 which are marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A8. As per the lease
agreement the period of lease is from 01.01.1993 for a period of five
years 23.01.1998. Once the lease is terminated after five years through
notice dated 23.01.1998 marked as Ex.A2, then the same has satisfied the
condition imposed under lease agreement Ex.A1. Moreover, the suit is
filed on 03.09.1998 and the suit was allowed on 30.06.2006. At this point
of time, issuance of notice cannot be a valid ground. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the 2nd substantial question of law.
7. The 3rd substantial question of law is when a company is
registered under Section 91 of Companies Act, can the company claim
themselves as a public trust. The Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the issue is settled in several judgments and
relied on the paragraph No.5 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mulla Gulam Ali and Safiabai D.Trust Vs.
M/s.Deeli Kumar and Co., reported in 2001(1) LW 652, the same is
extracted hereunder:
.......
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“5. The mere fact that the control in respect of the
administration of the trust vested in a group of people will not
itself take away the public character of the trust. Indeed if the
trust is not administered properly and the objects of the trust
are not carried out certainly for the benefit of the public
resort can be had to Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code
and get a scheme framed for the proper administration of the
trust and by displacing the trustees who are presently
managing the trust. If that is the position in law we fail to
understand as to how the High Court took the view that in
spite of the finding recorded by the Courts below that the
appellant is a public charitable institution and is engaged in
such activities and has given several donations to several
institutions which are exhibited as receipts before this Court,
we find to substance in the contention of that it is not a
charitable trust. The finding recorded by the High Court in
this regard is, therefore, set aside and the finding recorded by
the Courts below are restored”.
8. The same issue is dealt with in C.R.P(MD)No.242 of
2001, dated 23.02.2021 and the relevant paragraph Nos.10, 11 & 12 are
extracted hereunder:
..........
“10.In a judgment reported in 2001 2 MLJ 1 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 trust
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, orphan 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In the present case the articles of association would
clearly indicate the public activity of the trust, wherein it is stated that the
plaintiff is carrying on hospitals, dispensaries and colleges etc. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has not placed
any contrary evidence to hold the plaintiff is not carrying on public
activity. Hence by following the aforesaid judgements, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the plaintiff is a public trust.
10. Therefore all the substantial questions of law are held in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Hence the second
appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently,
the defendant is directed to vacate the premises and hand over possession
to the plaintiff. However, the defendant sought time to vacate the
premises, but the plaintiff submitted that the premises is necessary before
the academic year. It is seen that the defendant is a cooperative society, a
public institution and also paying rent without any default. Therefore,
the defendant/appellant is directed to vacate the premises and handed
over possession to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 30.03.2025.
Failing which the plaintiff may seek remedy as per law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Accordingly, both the Second Appeals are dismissed and
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below are hereby
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
KSA
Note : Issue a copy of order on 07.11.2024
TO:
1. The Principal District Court,
Trichirappalli.
2. The Subordinate Court,
Trichirappalli,
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
Common Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)Nos. 868 & 869 of 2008
Dated:
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
