ORDER.-This revision petition under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is filed by one Ambiga Animal who is the trustee of Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil and who filed an application before the learned Rent Controller under sections 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (ii), (b), 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (2) (v) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant in respect of a shop adjacent to the Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil, which premises belongs to the aforesaid Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil. The revision petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant on the following grounds: (1) that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent; (2) that the tenant committed acts of waste in the premises; (3) that he caused nuisance to the occupiers of the other premises; and (4) that the tenant had converted the non-residential portion into a residential one. The tenant refuted those assertions and contended that the eviction petition is not maintainable, since there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent and that the tenant did not commit any act of waste or cause any nuisance to the occupiers of the other premises. But, he found that the tenant was using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased out, inasmuch as the premises was let out for non-residential purposes, but the tenant was using it as a residential one. The learned Rent Controller, despite his finding that the tenant had used the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased out, yet dismissed the petition on the ground that no valid notice terminating the tenancy was given. On appeal by the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Hence this revision petition.

2. The only point that has been raised in this revision petition is that both the Courts below erred in holding that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. On behalf of the revision petitioner Mr. Venkatarama Iyer endeavoured to show that there was a valid notice terminating the tenancy inasmuch as the notice, the copy of which is Exhibit P-7, was sent under certificate of posting properly addressed to the tenant and a registered notice was also sent in addition to the sending of a copy of the notice under certificate of posting Mr. Arasappa on behalf of the respondent, after refuting the arguments addressed by Mr. Venkatarama Iyer, raised a new point. He has contended that in view of G.O.Ms. No. 1998, Home, dated 12th August, 1974 passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, this revision petition is not maintainable at all, and this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders in regard to the premises in question in view of the aforesaid Government Order. Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act empowers the Government to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act by means of a notification and it is in pursuance of that power, that the notification dated 12th August, 1974 in G.O.Ms. No. 1998 has been issued, whereby the Government has exempted all the buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the premises in question belongs to a Hindu religious trust. Therefore after 12th August, 1974, the date on which this notification was issued, no provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would apply to buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions. Mr. Arasappa therefore contends that this Court cannot now pass any order with regard to this premises under any of the provisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document