AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 903 of 1990, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. The suit has been laid by the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for mesne profits. Pending trial of the suit, these petitioners filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure code, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property along with a qualified Engineer and to file a report with regard to the value of the superstructures raised by these defendants in the suit property.
The petition was resisted by the respondents by stating that the petitioners are not entitled to the provisions of the The Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (in short called as "Act") and therefore the earlier attempt was already thwarted by the court and hence now they are percluded from invoking the Provisions of the Act.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchy dismissed the application by stating that inasmuch as the petition filed by these petitioners u/s 9 of the Act was filed with an application to condone the delay of 3102 days in filing such an application and the same was dismissed by the Court and that there had been neither appeal nor revsion, but the present petition with an identical relief is not at all sustainable.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the suit property was leased out by the mosque after taking possession, the predecessors of these petitioners have made superstructures spending huge amount and hence the valuation of the superstructures is very much essential and if it was not done, it would prejudice their rights.
Conversely, the learned Counsel for the first respondent Mrs. S. Srimathy would submit that the avenue has been closed for the petitioners by the specific provisions incorporated in the "Act" and hence they are not at all entitled for the relief of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. She draws the attention of this Court to the provisions u/s 1-(B)(3) of the Act which reads as follows:
(B) "religious charity" means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character (including a wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character), whether it be connected with any religious instititution or not:)
(Certain pending proceedings to abate.--(3) Every proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim,Christian or other religion and pending before any Court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the TamilNadu Gazette, shall, in so far as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, bate, and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall in so far as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, cease and determine and shall not be enforceable:
Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date.)
As per the above said provision, if the land belongs to a religious institution or religious charity belonging to a Hindu, Muslim or Christian or any other religion covered by any suit before any court or authority, all those proceedings shall abate. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, by virtue of this provision, it has to be deemed that the rights claimed thereon by the petitioners have abated.
It is her further contention that having the petitioners been in possession of the land by means of lease deeds marked as Ex.A12 and Ex.B2, after the lease period was over, they are bound to vacate the land and to surrender the same along with the entire superstructures put up thereon to the respondents and hence the prayer that the value of the superstructures has to be ascertained, does not stand for a minutes scrutiny. She further submits that the petition has been filed belatedly before the appellate court. This Court sees considerable force in her arguments.
The learned Counsel for the respondents also places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mylapore Club Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, . Their Lordships while dealing with the provision u/s 2 and 3 of the "Act" have approved the Full Bench decision of this Court that the right of the tenant in respect of the building put up by him will be governed by the terms of the contract and by general law. The relevant portion in para 13 of the above said judgment is as follows:
Once the power to exempt an institution or entity from the operation of the Act is conceded to the legislature, it cannot be argued that the benefit of one Section in that enactment could not be withdrawn. The right u/s 3 itself was extended only by the extension of the Act. The reasoning in Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt and Another, would cover the situation. The full bench of the High Court in the judgment under appeal has rightly notice that the right of the tenant in respect of the building put up by him will be governed by the terms of the contract and by general law. The position so adopted is unexceptionable.
In ground No. 13 of the Memorandum of Appeal in A.S. No. 168 of 2000, it has been specifically mentioned by these petitioners that Ex.A12 and Ex.B2 are the lease deeds and the court below has failed to appreciate the contents.
In view of the above said observations, the petitioners have to be non-suited for the relief prayed for. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchy. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.