AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kalyanasundaram, J.
The revision arises out of the order passed by XVIII Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 17123 of 2003 in O.S. No. 8677 of 1981.
The petitioner had instituted a suit against the respondents for recovery of possession and for other reliefs. In the suit, the defendants had taken out an application in I.A. No. 2570 of 1982 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, to direct the plaintiff/Mosque to sell the property to the defendants. The application was allowed after contest. The Trial Court has also fixed the value of the property as Rs. 24,782.50. The appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the order was dismissed by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A. No. 29 of 1987.
While so, the Government has brought an amendment to the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (II of 1996) taking away the rights of the tenants under Section 9 in purchasing the property of the Charitable Endowment Trust. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 17123 of 2003 to dismiss the I.A. No. 2570 of 1982 as abated, due to the amendment made to the City Tenants Protection Act and to revive the suit in O.S. No. 8697 of 1981 and pass further orders.
It is seen that Section 9 application was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The Trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner partly holding that the application filed by the tenants under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act is abated, but rejected the prayer for revival of the suit. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed.
Heard Mr. S. Umapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Mosque and Charitable Endowment Trust. In view of the Amendment Act (II of 1996), the defendants are not entitled to purchase the suit property under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The Trial Court, relying on the judgment reported in (2000) 3 MLJ 216 [V. Srinivasa Mudaliar v. C. Nagareeswarar Devasthanam rep. by its Trustee T. Srinivasan Chetty] held that the application filed by the tenants under Section 9 of the Act is abated but dismissed the prayer for revival of the suit on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction
In my considered view, once Section 9 application is dismissed as abated, the plaintiff is entitled to pursue the suit. Hence, the reasoning of the Trial Court cannot be sustained. The order passed in I.A. No. 17123 of 2003 is set aside and the suit is restored to file.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.