Judgment:
ORDER
Padmini Jesudarai, J.
1. This revision is by the unsuccessful plaintiff who as the chief tenant of the building belonging to a 'public trust sought the ejectment of his sub-tenant and whose suit was dismissed on the ground that the exemption granted under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, would be available only in an action for eviction initiated by the public trust itself.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are briefly as follows: The petitioner as chief tenant of certain premises belonging to a public religious institution, namely, Arulmigu Varadaraja Manavala Munikal temple sought the ejectment of the respondent herein who was the sub-tenant to whom a notice terminating the tenancy had been duly given.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondent inter alia questioning the validity of the plaintiff's claim that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the case, but that the exemption granted under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 following the Government Order passed thereunder would apply only if the action is initiated by the trust or by any one of the trustees and that the petitioner who is only a chief tenant could not claim the benefit of the exemption and that therefore the proper v forum was the Rent Control authority under the above Act.
4. Before the trial court, P.W. 1 was examined on the side, of the petitioner and Exs. P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the respondent D.W. 1 was examined and Ex. D1 was marked.
5.The only issue that was framed by the trial court, was whether the suit filed by the petitioner was maintainable. The trial court found that since P.W. 1 had admitted that he is not one of the trustees of the temple and that he had not. filed the suit on behalf of the temple the suit had to fail since the exemption under Section 29 of the above Act would apply only to suits filed by religious trustees against their tenants. The petitioner not being one, could not claim that the building is exempted from the purview of the above Act. The trial Court, therefore, held that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable and that the petitioner should have resorted to the provisions of the above Act in Order to secure eviction. Hence the revision by the petitioner.
6. Thiru P.K. Sivasubramanian Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that G.O. No. 2000, Home, dated 16-8-1976 issued under Section 29 of the Act, exempted all buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from the purview of the above Act and that since in the instant case, it was admitted by both the parties that the premises belonged to a public trust, the trial court ought not to have held that the ejectment suit was not maintainable. The exemption granted was with reference to buildings belonging' to a certain class of persons, namely, Hindu, Christian and. Muslim religious public trust and public charitable trusts. Once the building comes within the purview of the G.O. the exemption would be available to any one who might institute any proceeding with reference to that building. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Sivaprakasam v. Munisami Naicker : (1982)2MLJ109 . (rendered by Singaravelu, J.) wherein this Court, rejecting an argument similar to the one put forward by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, held that the question of exemption does not depend upon the person who files the application for eviction and that it is the property that is exempted from the Act and not the 'person. Per contra Thiru S.S. Trivedi Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision in Muthusami Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1977) 90 L.W. 45 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Kailasam C.J. and. Balasubramanyan, 3. would lend support to the contention that the exemption has to apply with reference to the class of persons and not necessarily to the class of buildings alone. In the above decision in which the validity of the Act G.O. issued under Section 29 of the Act was under challenge, the learned Chief Justice, speaking for the court, after referring to various decisions, observed as follows-
The classes of buildings have been fixed or determined only in relation to class of landlords that owned them. In view of the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, we are unable to agree with the Learned Counsel that the words 'class or classes of building' should be strictly construed as relating to buildings alone.
The Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that this decision would indicate that the exemption under Section 29 would be available only to certain categories of landlords.
7. The question that arises for determination is, whether the Order of the court below holding that the provisions of the above Act which exempted only in actions filed by public religious trusts against their tenants is correct.
8. It would be relevant at this stage to extract Section 29 of the Act and also G.O.Ms. No. 2000-Home, dated 16-8-1976.
29. Exemptions - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they may think fit, by notification, exempt any, building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act. 'Exemption of all buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trust and charitable trust from all provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
G.O.Ms. No. 2000-Home, 16th August, 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 1960), and in supersession of the Home-Department Notification, No. 11(2) HO/3811/74, dated 12th August, 1974, published at page 44 of Part II. Section 2, of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 21st August, 1974, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the. buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act.
A mere reading of Section 29 of the Act clearly indicates that it is open to the Government to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act. The section itself makes it clear that what is exempted is either a building or a class of buildings. There is no reference at all to any category of landlords who could be brought within the Section 29. No doubt, when the above G.O. has been passed, as has been observed by this Court in Muthuswami Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1977) 90 L.W. 45, the class of buildings that have been exempted have been fixed or determined only in addition to the class of land lords that owned the buildings. It is, therefore, clear that all buildings owned by the public trusts and public charitable trusts of the religious denominations mentioned in the G.O. come within the exemption. Ultimately, when the classification of certain types of buildings as coming within the exemption is made though the classification is initially made with reference to the landlords who owned those buildings, when the exemption is made, it is only the buildings that are exempted and not any particular class of landlords. The exemption would attach itself to the buildings so long as the buildings continued to be owned by Hindu, Christain and Muslim religious public trusts and public; charitable trusts. The exemption runs with the buildings so long as it is owned by any one of the categories mentioned in the G.O. In the instant case, it is admitted case of both parties that the building is owned by a public trust. It follows, therefore, that it squarely comes within the exemption of Section 29 of the Act. The view of the trial Court that the exemption is available only in the case of any action instituted by the religious trust itself is no+ correct. There is nothing either in Section 29 or in the G.O. issued thereunder to indicate that the exemption is limited only to actions maintained by the trust itself. As already indicated the exemption attaches itself to the building. The view of the trial court holding that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable and directing the petitioner to seek his remedies under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed. Since in the written statement, no other plea except want of jurisdiction of the trial court is taken, on the basis of which only one issue of which only one issue regarding the maintainability of the suit has been framed, and since the finding of the court ' below on that issue has been set aside, the suit has necessarily to be decreed as prayed for. Accordingly the suit is decreed as prayed for. No Order as to costs.