Maintainability of the suit against the sub-tenant.

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 there under 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) 2 M.L.J. 109 : 95 L.W. 728. (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