2007 (12) TMI 456 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court is justified in allowing Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the High Court in allowing Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.
2. Determination of whether the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a "religious institution" within the meaning of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 as amended by Act 2 of 1996.
3. Applicability of the amended provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to the ongoing proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the High Court in allowing Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.:

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in allowing the review applications under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. The provision allows for a review based on the discovery of new and important evidence, mistake, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court emphasized that an error must be apparent on the face of the record and not require further investigation. The review is not intended for re-hearing the same issue but correcting manifest errors. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly applied these principles, as the review was necessitated by the amended Act and the factual determination that the respondent was a "religious institution."

2. Determination of whether the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a "religious institution":

The High Court and the trial Court both concluded that the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a "religious institution" based on extensive oral and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Mission conducted religious ceremonies, prayers, and masses, qualifying it as a place of worship under Section 1(f) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Act 2 of 1996. The trial Court's report, which was based on evidence from both parties, supported this conclusion, and the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's acceptance of this report.

3. Applicability of the amended provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to the ongoing proceedings:

The amended Act, which came into force on 11.1.1996, excluded lands owned by religious institutions from the benefits conferred to tenants under Section 9 of the principal Act. The Supreme Court noted that the tenant's application under Section 9 was still pending when the amended Act came into force. The High Court correctly held that the proceedings abated with the enactment of the amended Act, as the sale deed was executed only on 28.10.1996, after the amendment. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the proceedings had reached finality before the amendment, agreeing with the High Court that the decree became a nullity from 11.1.1996. The Court also dismissed the reliance on the Full Bench decision in Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal, clarifying that proceedings are pending until the execution of the sale deed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was justified in allowing the review applications and that the Palani Roman Catholic Mission was correctly identified as a "religious institution." The amended Act 2 of 1996 applied to the ongoing proceedings, resulting in the abatement of the tenant's application under Section 9. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld.