N. Sreedharan Nair, Madras and others vs Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal Muslim Jamath, Virudhunagar, represented by its Managing Trustee, S. M. M. Yacoob and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Mad) 337

K.SAMPATH, A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, S.JAGADEESAN
N. Sreedharan Nair, Madras and others – Appellant
Versus
Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal Muslim Jamath, Virudhunagar, represented by its Managing Trustee, S. M. M. Yacoob and others – Respondent

Advocates:
R.Sundara Varadhan, Senior Counsel for A.Shanmugavel and for M.Balasubramanian, for Petitioner in W.P. Nos.11068, 11190, 15976 of 1996.
T.L. Ram Mohan, Senior Counsel, for M/s.P.Ananthakrishnan Nair and for M.A.Lakshmipathi, for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.8532 and 10552 of 1997, 12063 to 12065, 16047 of 1996, 9885, 3398 and 11015 of 1999.
A.D.C.Gurusamy, for petitioner in W.P. No.8088 of 1997.Mohan Parasaran, for R.Ravichandran, for Petitioner in W.P. No.4814 of 1997.
R.Muthukumaraswamy, Additional Advocate General, R.D.Adikesavalu, V.Karthikeyan, G.Sugumaran, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE), for Respondents.
K.Balasubramanian for S.S.Mathivanan, for Petitioner in W.P. No.13029 of 1996.
T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for Respondents in W.P. No.13621 of 1996 for A.Venkatesan, for Petitioner in W.P. No.19215 of 1996 and W.P.No.13351 of 1999.
S.B.Fazluddin, for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.10595, 10606, 10819, 10824, 11358 of 1998.
M.V.Krishnan, for Petitioners in W.P. No.7620 of 2000.
V.Raghavachari, for Petitioners in W.P. No.4977 of 2000.
Mrs.R.Kamala, for Petitioners in W.P. No.10708 of 1996.
S.Subramani, for Petitioners in W.P. No.14225 of 1996.
T.P.Kathiravan, for Petitioner in W.P. No.16175 of 1996.
Vijay Narayan, for Petitioners in W.P. No.12672 of 1998.

JUDGMENT

S.Jagadeesan, J: In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.1 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, (1972)2 M.L.J. 485: 85 L.W. 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Sec.9 of the Main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with the right of the tenants under Sec.3 of the said Act 3 of 1922.

3. In fact we had an occasion to deal with this batch of cases earlier and we dismissed all the writ petitions by our judgment dated 30.8.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(Mad) 337

K.SAMPATH, A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, S.JAGADEESANN. Sreedharan Nair, Madras and others – AppellantVersusMottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal Muslim Jamath, Virudhunagar, represented by its Managing Trustee, S. M. M. Yacoob and others – Respondent

Cases Referred (12)

K.SAMPATH, A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, S.JAGADEESAN
N. Sreedharan Nair, Madras and others – Appellant
Versus
Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal Muslim Jamath, Virudhunagar, represented by its Managing Trustee, S. M. M. Yacoob and others – Respondent