Change of law can affect on pending proceedings.

K. M. NATARAJAN, J.:- This letters patent appeal is directed by the appellantplaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in A. S. No. 632 of 1979 allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of the subCourt, Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No. 603 of 1975. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are referred to as the defendants.

The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows :- The plaintiffs alleged that the first plaintiff is a religious institution managed exclusively by Arya Visya Community of Tiruchirapalli. The suit property belongs to the first plaintiff-temple. The first defendant, Educational Trustee Co. Ltd., is running its daily establishment, a daily newspaper publication called "Dinathanthi". The first defendant became a tenant in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and the second defendant is in possession of the suit property. However, both defendants 1 and 2 unauthorisedly sub-let the premises to the third defendant without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were not regular in the payment of rent, and the suit property is required for their personal occupation. Hence a notice of termination of tenancy was issued by the plaintiffs calling upon the defendants to vacate, but in vain. Thereupon they filed the petition H.R.C.O.P. No. 221 of 1971 in the Rent Controller's Court, Tiruchi for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The above petition was dismissed. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O. Ms. No. 1998 dated 12-8-1974 exempting religious and charitable institutions and trusts from the operation of the Act. In view of the above Government order the plaintiffs cannot any longer pursue proceedings under the Act. Therefore, after issuing notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act and terminating the tenancy, the present suit for recovery of possession with damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from 1-6-1975 as well as future damages was filed.

2. The first defendant filed a written statement wherein it is averred that the suit has not been instituted by proper persons. The character of the first plaintiff institution and the trust as a religious one is not admitted. The parties are governed by the lease deed dated 7-7-1954 which provides the right to lease the property. The defendants have been regularly paying the rent of Rs. 60/- as stipulated in the lease deed. It is further submitted that the suit is barred in view of the dismissal of H.R.C.O.P. No. 221 of 1971 as G.O. Ms. No. 1998 dated 12-8-1974 is not applicable to the pending proceedings. Further, the G.O. will not apply to the first plaintiff-Institution. The requirement for personal occupation is denied. Lastly it was submitted that there is no proper notice to quit under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

3-4. An Additional written statement was filed wherein it was contended that six months notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required, since the suit property had been taken on lease for the specific purpose of running a printing press which is a manufacturing process. In any event, G.O. Ms. No. 1998 was superseded by G.O.Ms. No. 2000 Home, dt. 16-8-1976. Under the later G.O. only buildings belonging to the public religious and charitable institutions are taken out of the purview of the Act. The suit property is not owned by the public trust. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 2000 will not apply.

5. In the subsequent written statement it was contended that the suit property belonged to a private trust and hence the suit is not maintainable and the remedy is to take proceedin