The judgment establishes the sufficiency of property identification, representation of trustees in a suit, and the validity of exemption granted to public and charitable trusts under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

P.SHANMUGAM, J.

Defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff namely Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments, represented by its Trustees, obtained a decree for ejectment from the various shop portions occupied by the defendants in the suit premises bearing Door No.37 (Old No.100), Godown Street, Madras-600 001. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the above appeals have been filed. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :-

Haji Essa Abba Sait, by Ex.A.1, Trust Deed dated 1.5.1919, dedicated the properties mentioned in the trust deed for the purpose of performing the following charities :

(1) Of founding and maintaining a Madarasa for the benefit of members of the Kutch Memon and other Mohammedan communities in Madras;

(2) To give them sound religious, secular education in Arabic, Persian, Hindustani according to Hanafi, Shafi, Hambali and Maliki and other religious branches of education that is of special benefit to the members of the Kutch Memon and other Mohammedan communities; and

(3) Establishing a Musafirkhana or Chatram in George Town for affording residence for travellers of Mohammedan community of all sects.

The properties mentioned in the Schedule to the Trust Deed were dedicated for the said purpose. In order to equip and maintain the said Madarasa in a condition of efficiency, the trustees have to apply the balance of gross rental collections from the properties mentioned in the schedule to the trust deed. The suit property, namely the premises bearing Door No.37 (Old No.100), Godown Street, Madras-1 is one such property dedicated to the Trust. The trust deed was registered. The Board of Management of the Trust was formed and it was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 10.10.1922.

3. The plaintiff is a public trust and are the owners of the suit premises. The Board of Revenue (Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax) granted total exemption to the plaintiff from payment of urban tax by order dated 22.6.1980, Ex.A.3 under Section 27(1) of the Urban Land Tax Act on being satisfied that the institution is a charitable institution under the control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board subject to the condition that the lands are specifically used for the purpose of the institution. The plaintiff, being a public charitable trust, is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 by virtue of the Government Order in G.O. Ms.No.2000 dated 16.8.1976 passed under Section 29 of the said Act.

4. The defendants are tenants occupying different portions of the premises on a monthly rent of various amounts, the tenancy being according to the English calendar month.

5. The suit building is situated in Godown Street, in the heart of Madras City and is predominantly a textile market. The suit building is admittedly nearly 95 years old and the total rent received from 20 tenants is approximately Rs.7,000/- and taking into account the present market condition and the value of the property in the locality, the Trust decided to put up a new building and make a profitable use of the said building. The plaintiff issued notices to the defendants terminating the tenancy and the same was acknowledged. The defendants have neither given a reply nor have they complied with the demand of vacating the premises. Therefore, the suit came to be filed for a direction to quit and hand over vacant possession of the portion in occupation in premises bearing Door No.37 (Old No.100), Godown Street, Madras-1 and further directing the defendants to pay damages for use and occupation.

6. The defendants did not dispute the character of the Trust as a Public Charitable Trust. According to them, the exemption will not apply to the plaintiff Trust as the suit building is a massive structure of four storeys with a total built-up area of about 20,000 sq.ft. and demolition and re-construction of the same is an unwise decision. They have put the plaintiff to strict pr