Trust being private trust not exempted from Rent Control Act.

1. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant.

2. The suit was filed for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a public charitable trust. The defendant is a monthly tenant in a portion in the ground floor on payment of Rs.226. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose. On 26.7.1982, notice was sent for payment of rent, As there was no payment on 7.9.1982, notice determining the tenancy was sent. Since there was no compliance the suit was filed.

4. The defendant contended that the allegation of nonpayment of rent for 44 months was not correct. Notice dated 7.9.1982 terminating the tenancy was not valid in the law. In the additional written statement the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was not a public charitable trust. Hence it was not entitled for exemption. In substance, the defence was that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court and the remedy was before the Rent Controller.

5. The trial court framed two issues and one additional issue. The additional issue related to the character of the trust as to whether it is a Public Charitable Trust or not.

6. The trial court considered additional issue No. 1 in detail and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a public charitable trust and hence it is exempted from the purview of the Rent Control Act, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.2000 of 1976. Hence, the suit was decreed. The defendant filed the appeal before the Principal Judge, Madras. The learned principal judge considered the point No. 1 relating the character of the trust and allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand, once again the trial court found that the plaintiff was a public trust. Hence decreed the suit. When the matter came up before the VI the Additional Judge, by way of appeal once again the appellate court considered the point as to whether the plaintiff is a public trust or private trust and opined that the plaintiff is a public trust. Hence, it confirmed the decree and the judgment of the trial court. In this appeal, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff is not a public charitable trust and it is only a private one and therefore the exemption from the purview of the Rent Control Act is not available. Consequently, the suit is not maintainable.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.V.Raghavachari contended that since the beneficiaries are public and they are not identifiable, the plaintiff must be deemed to be a public one.

8. The court below considered that the beneficiaries were members of the public and not the members of the family of the original trustee. Hence, the plaintiff must be deemed to be a public one.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that even though the benefits are conferred upon the public, the management of the trust is in the hands of the family of the original trustee and as such the Trust must be deemed to be only a private trust.

10. In this case, Ex.A-1 was produced. As per Ex.A-1 the trust, has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. Ex.A-2 contain objects of the trust. The main objects are to give donations to educational and charitable institutions and to open and maintain schools and colleges for imparting general or technical education. The list of members of the Governing Body is also given at page No.2. There are 9 members in the Governing Body, Ex.A-2 is the rules and regulations. In Ex.A-3, there is a mention about the membership and management. The members shall not be less than 7 and more than 11. The trust is managed by a Governing Body called Managing Committee, which consists of President, Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and 3 or more Trustees but not exceeding the limit mentioned in Art.4 above, that is the strength should not exceed it. The office-bearers are elected from among