Skip to content


Chellappa Sebastian and anr. Vs. R.C. Diocese Through Its Procurator General Rev. Fr. S. Jesudansan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1976)1MLJ435
AppellantChellappa Sebastian and anr.
RespondentR.C. Diocese Through Its Procurator General Rev. Fr. S. Jesudansan and ors.
Cases ReferredK. Viswanathan v. R. Subbarajulu
Excerpt:
- .....two tenants numbered as r.c.o.p. no. 77 of 1971 and 75 of 1971 under section 10(3)(i) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act. the main purpose for getting these buildings is to have the buildings demolished and to use the space which is opposite to the church to put up a gate and also to use the open space for congregation. hence both the courts below posed for decision the point as to whether the landlords requirement of the scheduled buildings in the occupation of the respective petitioners herein is for the purpose of the institution as contemplated under section 10(3)(b) of the act. both the courts came to the conclusion that the requirement is for the purposes mentioned in section 10(3)(b) of the act and that there is no question of invoking section 14(1)(b) of the.....
Judgment:

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.

1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. The respondents who are the landlords filed eviction proceedings against two tenants numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 77 of 1971 and 75 of 1971 under Section 10(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main purpose for getting these buildings is to have the buildings demolished and to use the space which is opposite to the church to put up a gate and also to use the open space for congregation. Hence both the Courts below posed for decision the point as to whether the landlords requirement of the scheduled buildings in the occupation of the respective petitioners herein is for the purpose of the institution as contemplated under Section 10(3)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the requirement is for the purposes mentioned in Section 10(3)(b) of the Act and that there is no question of invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and as such the eviction prayed for by the landlords have to be granted.

2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Courts below, the respective tenants in the respective eviction proceedings have preferred the above said two Civil Revision Petitions.

3. Mr. Velusami, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants in these revision petitions pointed out that there is specific provision in the Rent Control Act, to pray for demolition and reconstruction and as such, the Learned Counsel for the tenants submitted that the eviction petitions filed by the landlords under Section 10(3)(b) of the Act are not maintainable.

4. Learned Counsel for the tenants also submitted that the requirement is not for their own purposes and as such Section 10(3)(J) cannot be invoked in the present case. It was further submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants herein that as per G.O Ms. No. 1998, Home, dated 12th August, 1974 the Government in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has exempted all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. If that be so, the Learned Counsel for the tenants submits that there is no question of ordering any eviction under the provisions of the Madras Act XVIII of 1960. It is clear from the facts that while the matter was pending before the lower appellate Court, the said G.O. has been passed. As such, Mr. Velusamy submits that the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order as prayed for by the respondents herein.

5. Mr. Martin, Learned Counsel appearing for the landlords-respondents submitted that the requirement is for the purposes of the respondents-landlords herein and that there is no question of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act since the respondents require the buildings for the purposes of demolishing the same and using the place for the purpose of congregation and also to erect a gate in order to have ingress and egress conveniently to the church which has been recently renovated. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Government Order referred to above is not a substantive law and further there is no retrospective effect given in the said Government Order. As such, it is stated that the said exemption granted will not affect the pending proceedings.

6. I have been taken through the pleadings of the case and also certain decisions in order to substantiate the respective contentions placed by the respective counsel appearing in this case.

7. It is clear from Section 10(3)(b) that the respondents who are religious institutions can get any buildings of their own for the purposes of the institution by applying to the Controller. As far as the present case is concerned, the pleadings and also the evidence clearly make out that the requirement is only for the purposes of the respondents-institutions.

8. As regards the provision of law, it is clear that Section 14(1)(b) will not apply to the facts of the case since the prayer is not for demolition and reconstruction. The mere putting up of a gate for the purposes of convenient ingress and egress to the renovated church, cannot be construed as putting up a new building in the place of the building that is sought to be demolished. If that be so, Section 10(3)(5) will be applicable to the facts of this case and not Section 14(1)(5) as alleged by the counsel for the tenants herein.

9. As far as the G.O.Ms. No. 1998, Home, dated 12th August, 1974, is concerned, it contemplates only exemption for the religious institutions and other charitable trusts from coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960. The intention of the Government Order is only to facilitate the religious institutions to have its buildings for its own purpose without recourse to the Rent Controller's Court. That does not meant he right, the institution had before the passing of the Government Order has been nullified. The Government Order is only to facilitate the religious institutions to have quicker remedy for having the buildings of its own for its own purpose. If that be so, there is no question of the orders passed or pending proceedings in the. Rent Controller's Court under Section 10(3)(b) getting nullified. On the other hand, it is clear from the Government Order that there is no question of any retrospective effect given for the exemption granted by the said Government Order under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960.

10. No doubt there is a decision rendered by Paul, J. in G. Ambiga Ammal v. Selvaraja Mudaliar : (1975)2MLJ51 which states:

The effect of the notification passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu is that in respect of the premises in question, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent, Control) Act would no longer apply and no order could be passed in respect of such buildings under any of the provisions of the act including Section 25 which provides for a revision to this Court. Therefore I find that this Court has no jurisdiction now to pass any order with regard to the premises in question and consequently this civil revision petition has to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

Mr. Velusamy citing this decision states that no order for eviction is sustainable whether it is passed before the passing of the Government Order or subsequent to the Government Order inasmuch as the matter is pending before this Court as regards the eviction prayed for by the respondents-landlords herein. It is clear from the decision rendered in G. Ambiga Ammal v. Seluaraja Mudaliar : (1975)2MLJ51 , that the effect of passing such Government Orders in respect of the pending proceedings and also proceedings ended to prior to such passing of the Government Order had not been discussed, in the light of various decisions that had been rendered on such subjects. Unless the Legislature makes it effect retrospectively, the amendment will not in any way affect the pending proceedings. As far as the present case is concerned, the Government Order enacted by the Government under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, cannot be construed as a substantive law, nor one which gives the retrospective effect to such provisions mentioned in the Government Order. To strenghten this view, Mr. T. Martin cited a case reported in Income-tax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnoose : [1970]75ITR174(SC) . In that decision the Supreme 'Court has observed:

It is open to the Sovereign Legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation. The Court will not ascribe retrospectivity to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the Legislature. The Parliament can delegate its Legislative power within the recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the Legislature, it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found, it has been held by the Courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or by-law which can operate with retrospective effect.

The power conferred to pass such Government Orders is under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The said section states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, by notification, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

Thus the section has not empowered the Government to pass any G.O. giving retrospective effect for such amendments. Applying the above said Supreme Court decision, the present G.O. cannot be considered as one giving retrospective effect. On the other hand, the pending proceedings are saved from the language of the present G.O. in view of the Supreme Court decision referred to above.

11. Mr. Martin has also cited Killick Nixon Ltd. v. V.R. Narayana Rao (1974) 1 M.L.J. 16. In this a bench of our High Court considering the amending Act XXIII of 1973 pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, held that the amending. Act could not be taken, to affect pending proceedings or the decisions rendered therein.. The Bench further observed :

If the Legislature intended the amendment to be retrospective so as to affect vested rights, it would have made a specific provision for abatement of the pending proceedings and the decisions rendered therein as was done when the Amending Act (II of 1962) was passed. It cannot be held that Act XXIII of 1973 either expressly or by necessary implication has provided for abatement of pending proceedings. In the absence of any such provision, it has to be taken that the amending Act was only prospective.

12. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no such amending Act by the Legislature excepting the Government passing a G.O. under the powers conferred upon them under Section 29 of the Act. Hence, it is clear that the present G.O. can neither affect a decision rendered nor interfere with the pending proceedings inasmuch as there is nothing retrospective in the exemption granted to the religious institutions by the said Government Order. Mr. Velusamy cited a case reported in K. Viswanathan v. R. Subbarajulu (1974) T.L.N.J. 394, in support of the decisions rendered on the strength of certain amendments to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which were struck down, by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. I do not think that they will have any bearing on the facts of the present case and as such it is not applicable in the present context.

13. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court has jurisdiction to continue the proceedings which arose much earlier to the passing of the G.O. referred to above. As far as the facts and the law are concerned, the respondents/landlords are entitled to have the buildings in question for their own purpose under Section 10(3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. There is absolutely no question of any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below in favour of the respondents herein.

14. In these circumstances both these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Time to vacate three months.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //