High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
N. Sreedharan Nair
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
W.P.No.7205, 7292 8252, 8739 of 1996 etc
Decided On : 30-08-2000
The Judgment of the Full Bench was delivered by S.Jagadeesan, J.:
1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the tenants in the properties belonging to the religious institutions, such as temple, mutt, mosque and church. The lands belonging to such religious institutions had been leased out to the petitioners herein with an option to construct the superstructure at their cost. The petitioners have put up the construction in such lands. In some cases, the religious institutions filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land and the suits had been decreed and the appeals are pending. In some cases, either suits are pending or no suit had been laid by the religious institutions for recovery of possession of the lands. In some cases, after finality of the decree, the proceedings are pending at the execution stage. Whenever the suits or appeals are pending, in most of the cases, the tenants have filed application under Sec.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act III of 1922). When such proceedings were pending the said Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922 was amended under the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act (II of 1996) hereinafter referred to as Act II of 1996).
(2) Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.1 of Act III of 1922 not only deals with the applicability of the said Act to certain tenancies of land but also deals with the exemption of certain tenancies of land from the purview of the Act. The first proviso to sub-Sec.(3) of Sec.1 exempts from the purview of the Act the tenancies of the land owned by (a) the Corporation of Madras, in the City of Madras; (b) owned by the Municipal Council concerned, in any other Municipal areas:
(bb) by the Township Committee concerned, in any Township:
(c) by the Panchayat or by the Panchayat Union Council constituted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, the Panchayat constituted under the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats Act, 1950;
(d) by the District Board concerned in case of all areas in a District which are not comprised within the local limits of such Panchayat or Panchayat Union;
(e) by theBoard of Trustees for the improvement of the City of Madras constituted under the Madras City Improvement Trust Act, 1950 (Madras Act XXXVII of 1950).
3. By way of amendment under the Act II of 1996 one more clause (f) is added to the first proviso to sub-Sec.(3) of Sec.1 which is follows:
“(f) by any religious institutions or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion.
Explanation: - for the purpose of this clause:
(A)” religious institution means any--
(i) Temple;
(ii) Math;
(iii) Mosque;
(iv) Church; or
(v) other place by whatever name known which is dedicated to or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, any community or section thereof as a place of public religious worship;
(B) “religious charity” means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character (including a wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character) whether it, be connected with any religious institution or not“
.4. Under the newly introduced clause, the tenancies in respect of the land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion have been exempted from the purview of Act III of 1922. In these writ petitions, the validity of this amendment is being challenged.
.5. These writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.A. Swami, and Mr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan (as they were then). When the matter was heard by the learned Judges, the Government Pleader relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council , 85 L.W. 760 and advanced argument that the amendment now introduced is identical to an earlier amendment introduced in Sec.2 of Act 13 of 1960. Whether the first proviso to sub-Sec.(
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.