ORDER: The above revision petition is filed by the tenant questioning the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Sub-Judge, Chidambaram, in the judgment dated 14.11.2003 in R.C.A.No.11 of 2002, confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Chidambaram, in the order dated 31.7.2002 passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-sangam is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question, under Sec.14(1)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called ‘the Act’. The same was contested by the petitioner/tenant stating that the respondent/landlord is a religious and charitable institution and the Rent Control Court cannot entertain the eviction petition and so the petitioner/landlord before the learned Rent Controller has to file a civil suit to evict the petitioner/tenant.

3. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondent/landlord is not a charitable endowment and so it cannot be said that the eviction petition under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable, considering the merits of the case, learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant. The petitioner/tenant preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.11 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Though the learned appellate authority made observations saying that taking into consideration the object of the respondent-sangam/landlord, it has to be taken as a public trust, by relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent/landlord, but has come to the conclusion that the respondent-sangam/landlord cannot take such a stand that it is a public trust and thereby dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/tenant has preferred the above revision petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant only submitted that the learned rent controller has no jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petition, as the respondent-landlord is a public charitable trust as found by the learned Rent Controller and so the order of eviction is passed without any jurisdiction. The said submission was made on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home Department, dated 16.8.1976 under which the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 were exempted. According to the learned counsel, in view of such exemption, the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction and only the Civil Court has to deal with the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that such exemption is given only for the benefit of the landlords. It is for the landlord to waive such a benefit. But for such exemption the landlord has to approach only the Rent Control Court for eviction of a tenant. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhye Shyam, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2213: (1972)1 S.C.J. 564. Learned counsel further relied on the decision in Chennichi alias Parilkkal v. Srinivasan Chettiar, (1970)1 M.L.J. 234 and submitted that the High Court while exercising revisional power will not take a technical view even with respect to the jurisdiction. On that basis, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/tenant is not in a position to canvass anything against the finding of the authorities below, and on merits, this Court may not interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below merely on technical ground.

6. In the present case, as stated already, the relationship of land and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. The question that has to be decided in this case is whether the learned Rent Controller is having jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition and even if any such error is commit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document