Hindustan Bible Institute held a religious and charitable trust.

The defendant/ tenant has filed this second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below concurrently granting relief of possession of the suit building, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff, Hindustan Bible Institute India.

2. Only two submissions were argued before me in this Second Appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant. One is, the courts below have erred in having concluded that G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home dated 16th August, 1976 issued under Sec.29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply to the suit building. In other words, according to him, the said G.O. would not apply to the said building and therefore, if at all, the plaintiff could go before the Rent Controller to get an eviction order against the appellant from the suit building and that the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try the present suit. The 2nd submission is that the plaintiff "Hindustan Bible Institute India" is not the landlord of the appellant but only the "Hindustan Bible Institute and College" and that hence the present suit laid by the plaintiff for ejectment of the appellant is not maintainable.

3. But the learned counsel for the respondent argued contra, in regard to both the abovesaid submissions.

4. It must be noted here that out of the abovesaid two submissions the first one was not raised in the courts below at all and only the second one was raised in the courts below and regarding the said second submission both the courts below did not accept the contentions of the appellant.

5. I shall first take up the abovesaid first submission. The material portion of the G.O.Ms. No.2000, Home, 16th August, 1976 runs as follows:

"....In suppression of the Home Department Notification No.II(2)/HO/381 1/74, dated the 12th August, 1974, published at page 444 of Part II, Sec.2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the 21st August, 1974, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act." The earlier G.O. which has been substituted by this G.O., is G.O.Ms. No. 1998, Home, 12th August, 1974, whose material portion runs as follows:

"...the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the said Act."

.6. Thus, while the earlier G.O. exempted all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim "religious trusts and charitable institutions" the latter G.O. exempted all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim " religious public trusts and public charitable trusts". The differences between the wordings of the two G.Os., are that the words "Institutions" found in the earlier G.O. has been omitted in the latter G.O. and only the word "trusts" alone is used in the latter G.O. and the word "public" which was not there in the earlier G.O. has been introduced in the latter G.O. But, in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant stressed about the former different viz., the omission of the word "institutions" in the latter G.O. and the retention of the word "trusts" alone in the latter G.O. In other words, the learned counsel submits that the plaintiff in the present case is not a Trust and it is only a "society" registered under the Societies Registration Act and so cannot claim exemption under the abovesaid latter G.O. In this connection he also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in M/s Mazda Ice Manufacturing Company v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Madras. C.R.P. No.5013 of 1993, etc. dated 4. 1989.

.7. There, after extracting the abovesaid G.O.Ms. No.2000, the following observation is made:

."From a reading of the G.O. it is clear that it would apply to I