9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na fide and as such the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try or determine the suit. 3. Before the considering the submissions of the parties, the background in which the issues before us arise needs to be stated. 4. In 1900, one Mandi Venkata Naicker endowed his property in Trust for religious and charitable purposes by a registered deed dated 7th September 1900. A supplementary deed was executed by the said Venkata Naicker on 12th April 1911 transferring further properties to the Trust from the income of which various rituals were to be carried on. According to the appellants the suit property was one of such Trust properties. The second appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the Trust in 1942. Subsequently, the second appellant formed a partnership firm together with his sons. The firm is the first appellant before us and the remaining appellants are its partners. The appellants' case is that they have continued as tenants under the Trust and the suit premises still belongs to the Trust. 5. According to the respondent, the said premises belonged to S. Gowthaman, an held of the said Venkata Naicker. The respondent claims that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil Court which would have the jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 14 15 and 16 of the Act, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded . It is clear from the language of this proviso, that the Rent Controller has only to decide whether there is a bona fide dispute as to the landlord's title and has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title himself. That would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 10. This was also held in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M.R. Murali and Anr. MANU/SC/0091/2002 : [2002]1SCR919 where this Court having examined the relevant scheme of the Act construed the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Clause (vii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10, in the following words: The legislative intent appears to be that denial of title can be decided by the Controller for the limited purpose of finding out whether a ground of eviction is made out but the questions of title should be left to be determined by the Civil Court. Once a question of title ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty belonged to the said Trust and not to the respondent as Gowthaman could not have sold the property to the respondent and that in accordance with G.O.No. 2000 dated 16th August, 1976, religious endowments like the suit property were exempted wholly from the operation of the Rent Control Act. It was also stated that an application under Section 92 CPC had been filed by the appellants for leave to file a suit in respect of the Trust properties including the sit premises. 15. By an Order dated 21st September, 1990, the appellants' application under Section 92 CPC was granted and the appellants' suit was numbered as O.S. No. 539 of 1990 before the Subordinate Judge, Erode. The appellants brought this fact to the notice of the Rent Controller by filing an additional counter on 17th January, 1991. 16. The respondent impugned the order granting leave under Section 92 before the High Court under Section 115 CPC. The High Court allowed the Revisional Application by an order dated 23rd August, 1991, and held that the trust was a religious endowment and religious charity within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and that Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviction before the Civil Court. 20. The respondent challenged the decision of the Appellate Authority before the High Court by way of a revisional application under Section 115 CPC. By its judgment dated 17th November, 1998 the High Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Authority and restored the decision of the Rent Controller solely on the issues relating to the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The judgment then records: Learned counsel for the respondents request time so as to enable the tenants to vacate the premises. Accepting the same, six months' time is granted to the respondents from this date on condition that the respondents should file an affidavit of undertaking stating that they would vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the said period, without making the landlord to go to the court for taking possession. Such an affidavit should be filed on or before 30.11.1998. if such an affidavit is not filed within the said period, the order of eviction will come into operation with immediate effect . 21. The appellants did not file any undertaking. Instead they impugned the decision of the High Court b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g any advantage by the appellants on the basis of such undertaking therefore did not arise at all. In fact the application under Article 136 was filed well within the period of limitation. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent is misconceived and is accordingly rejected. 24. On the merits, we are of the view that the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The basic question to be decided (and which should have been decided by the High Court) was whether the Rent Controller could have determined his own jurisdiction finally not only with regard to the applicability of the Act to the suit premises but also with regard to title of the respondent to the premises. 25. As we have already noted it was and is the appellants' case that the suit property belonged to and still belongs to a religious trust. This assertion forms the basis not only of their contention that the Act does not apply to the suit property but also of their denial of the respondent's title to it. In the case before us, the Rent Controller did not address himself at all to this basic fact. Consequently, he did not express any view on the question of the applicability of the Act to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, by Section 5 and 108 of the Endowments Act, the jurisdiction which would otherwise have vested in the Civil Courts to grant relief under Section 92 CPC in respect of public, religious or charitable trusts has been taken away and vested in authorities constituted under the Endowments Act. 30. Perhaps because of the special procedure to be followed in respect of religious endowments, a notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Act to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. The notification was issued on 16th August, 1976 and reads as follow: (G.O. Ms No. 2000, Home, August 16, 1976) No. II(2)/HO/4520/76.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of the 1960), and in suppression of the Home Department Notification No. II(2)/HO/3811/74, dated August 12, 1974, published at page 444 of part II - Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated August 12, 1974, the Government of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that was rejected, and the apex court also confirmed the said order and so it cannot be said that the learned Judge has decided as to whether the trust in question is a public trust or not . 35. This conclusion proceeds on a misreading of the earlier decision. In the revision application, it was the respondent who had specifically raised the issue that the Trust was covered by the Endowment Act and, therefore, Section 92 CPC did not apply. The High Court accepted this submission. The High Court was of the view that there was no necessity for any other evidence to be led for the purpose of deciding the character of the Trust as it was a (sic) of law which depended on the terms of the Trust deed. It was because the High Court came to the conclusion that the Trust was a religious endowment or religious charity within the meaning of the Endowment Act that it dismissed the application filed by the appellants for leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, the only basis for rejecting leave under Section 92 CPC was that the Trust documents created a 'religious endowment' or 'religious charity' within the meaning of the Endowments Act and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encement of the tenancy and the estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenant does not surrender possession over the tenancy premises to the landlord who inducted him in possession. The tenant is not estopped from denying the title of the landlord if it comes to an end subsequent to the creation of the tenancy nor is he estopped from questioning the derivative title of a transferee of his landlord (Emphasis added) 39. It is nobody's case that the appellants were inducted by Gowthaman from who the respondent derived his interest in the property. The High Court noted that the rent receipts were given originally in the name of E. Venkata Naicker Trust, Erode/E.V. Krishasami Sons (management) . Therefore, the appellants were inducted as tenants by the Trust. If the suit property was part of the Trust, the appellants could validly raise the questions viz. how did the property come to be transferred by the Trust to Gowthaman? What was the validity of the transfer, if any? What was the nature of the interest which Gowthaman had in the suit property? Was it qua trustee or qua owner? If it was that of a trustee, could he have, legally and in terms of the Trust deed, transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a person who is entitled to receive the rent or as the trustee, should be construed as the landlord, and he issued the notice to the tenants to pay the rent to the petitioner, and so notwithstanding the sale in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in question, the petitioner should be construed as the landlord as he has been authorised to receive the rent by a notice dated 18.7.1988 issued to the tenants by the said Gowthaman, and thereby he is entitled to maintain the eviction petition in the capacity as landlord . 44. The High Court's reasoning was far removed from the pleadings of the respondent. The respondent had claimed that Gowthaman was the absolute owner of the suit property and that such absolute interest had been purchased by the respondent. Given this pleading the respondent could not be allowed to sent up a different case and take shelter behind the definition of 'landlord' in the Act. The definition of 'landlord' is an enabling provision in the sense that it enables persons who are not the owners to ask for eviction under the Act. But it does not mean that a person who has claimed to be the landlord qua owner can jettison his c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
