9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e various shop portions occupied by the defendants in the suit premises bearing Door No. 37 (Old No. 100), Godown Street, Madras-600 001. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the above appeals have been filed. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: Haji Essa Abba Sait, by Ex.A.1, Trust Deed dated 1.5.1919, dedicated the properties mentioned in the trust deed for the purpose of performing the following charities: (1) Of founding and maintaining a Madarasa for the benefit of members of the Kutch Memon and other Mohammedan communities in Madras; (2) To give them sound religious, secular education in Arabic, Persian, Hindustani according to Hanafi, Shafi, Hambali and Maliki and other religious branches of education that is of special benefit to the members of the Kutch Memon and other Mohammedan communities; and (3) Establishing a Musafirkhana or Chatram in George Town for affording residence for travellers of Mohammedan community of all sects. The properties mentioned in the Schedule to the Trust Deed were dedicated for the said purpose. In order to equip and maintain the said Madarasa in a condition of efficiency, the truste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intiff Trust as the suit building is a massive structure of four storeys with a total built-up area of about 20,000 sq.ft. and demolition and re-construction of the same is an unwise decision. They have put the plaintiff to strict proof of their claim that the rent in that area would fetch at the rate of Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 per sq.ft. and contend that the claim of damages at that rate would be unsubstantiated and arbitrary. They have also pleaded that the notice of termination is bad in law and not in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. The learned City Civil Judge, Chennai, in his common judgment, framed separate issues in all the 17 suits and granted a decree directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. However, the relief sought for a direction to pay damages for use and occupation was negatived. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the tenants/defendants have preferred 17 appeals and the plaintiff, aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for damages, has filed separate appeals. By an order dated 20.2.2001, a learned single Judge of this Court had directed all these appeals to be listed as early ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofar as the appeals filed by the plaintiff are concerned, learned counsel fairly concedes that the claim for damages for use and occupation was not substantiated by evidence and that he may not be in a position to substantiate the grounds of appeal. 10. We have heard the counsel and considered the matter carefully. 11. The following questions arise for consideration : (i) Whether the suit notice and the suit are bad for want of identification of the property ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction ? 12. The fact that Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments is a public charitable trust is not in dispute. The counsel at the bar have conceded on the nature and the charitable disposition of the Trust. The fact that out of the various properties endowed for the benefit of the Trust, the property at No. 37 (Old No. 100), Godown Street, Madras-1 is one such property also is not in dispute. The further fact that the defendants are in occupation as tenants of the Trust for several decades is also not in dispute. The foremost objection is as to the failure to specify the exact description of the property in the suit notice as well as in the plaint. Also, the facts that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal before this Court. Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that in case the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it. As pointed out earlier, insofar as the suit property is concerned, the same had been sufficiently identified and there is no controversy regarding the same. Therefore, we have to hold that the main objection raised appears to be an after-thought made for the first time in the course of the arguments. We have no hesitation in rejecting the said contention and holding that at no stage there was any difficulty or objection as to the identity of the suit property. 14. The objection on behalf of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable, since on the date of the trial, there was only one Trustee out of the five Trustees of the plaint Trust and the remaining existing Trustees ought to have been impleaded. In this context, it has to be pointed out in paragraph 1 of the plaint reads as follows : Plaintiff is Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments, a public charitable trust and also registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrusted to the Governing Body. According to the appellants/defendants, the suit should have been filed by competent persons under the Societies Registration Act. We do not find any merit in the submission. The plaintiff is the Trust and is represented by the Trustees and for its management, a Society is formed, consisting of a Governing Body. In this context, the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court can usefully be referred to. In Rajan Devasahayam v. Hindustan Bible Institute of India, 1996 (1) L.W. 533, the plea that the plaintiff in that case is not a Trust, but only a Society and therefore, cannot claim exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 2000 dated 16.8.1986 was negatived. The learned Judge has, rightly in our view, held that the plaintiff is a Trust though it is also a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 16. The suit property consists of ground and two floors and the total area of construction is about 9,405 sq.ft. The rent collected from the 20 tenants is approximately Rs. 7,850 per month. The building is said to be more than 100 years old and is in a very bad condition. The Trust also depends on the income from this building. The Trustees have dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of the Act. The above said order came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in S. Kandasamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 257. The Supreme Court, while upholding the power of the Government and the Government Order, held that the buildings belonging to such public religious and charitable trusts clearly fell into a class where undue hardship and injustice resulting to them from the uniform application of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act needed to be relieved and the exemption granted will have to be regarded as being germane to the policy and the purpose of the Act. Their lordships held that the State Government may have felt that the Trustees of such buildings should be able to have effective eviction without being required to fulfill other onerous conditions which must be complied with by private landlords when they seek eviction by such purpose. Their lordships also held that the State Government, on materials before it, came to the conclusion that the fair rent fixed under the Act was unjust in case of such buildings and it was necessary to permit the trustees of such buildings to recover from the tenants, reasonable ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
