1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 08.09.2008 rendered in A.S.No.9 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, in confirming the decree and judgment dated 28.08.2007 made in O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the second appellant/defendant. Whereupon, the defendant resisted the suit. The issues were framed and the trial was conducted. During the trial on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and the documents Exs P.1 to P.6 were marked and on the defendant's side, D.W.1 was examined and the documents Exs.B.1 to B.19 were marked. Ultimately, the trial Court ordered eviction. As against which, the first appeal was filed by the defendant for nothing but to be dismissed. Impugning the concurrent findings of both the fora below, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds.

4. My predecessor on hearing both sides formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law:

"1. Whether the appellant is protected under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921?

2. Whether the plaintiff is exempted from the provisions of the said Act?"

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts below failed to take into account that the tenants are protected under the City Tenants Protection Act.

6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the plaintiff being a Public Trust is exempted from the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

7. Both substantial questions of law are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and intertwined with each other.

8. I would like to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921:-

"1(3) This Act shall apply,

***** *****

Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to tenancies of land owned-

*****

*****

*****

(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion."

9. A mere running of the eye over it would connote and exemplify that the immovable properties belonging to the said public trust are exempted from the purview of the said The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. It has to be seen as to whether the plaintiff's Trust is a public trust or not. This Court in similar matter decided on 07.06.2007 in S.A.No.365 of 2006 held that the Trust concerned is the public trust. I would like to refer to those details once again herein.

"Here, Ex.A.1 would speak to the contrary. An excerpt from Ex.A.1, would run thus:

"10. The present committee shall cease to hold office from the date of the formation of a new committee of Managers and shall hand over all documents papers and accounts as well as possession of movable and immovable properties to the newly elected members except the movable appurtenant to the worship of the deities in the temple in item No. (1) and in the possession of the Hindu Managers. (emphasis supplied)

11. With reference to the election of Two Hindu Managers for the Hindu Panikkar Community, referred to in Para 1 (apart from the election of six managers provided for in para 7 and it shall be done by the Hindu Panikkars alone.)

12. Out of the gross income charges, taxes, kists, etc., of the properties and their repairs shall be must first. Then an amount of Rs., which represents 1/5 of the net income i.e, gross income less the kist and the house tax.) subject to a maximum of Rs.400/- shall be ear marked as a first charge out of the income of the properties for the Pooja and worship in item 1, paid out every year to the Hindu Managers referred to in paragraph 10. The Balance shall be applied for such secular purposes as may be determined by the community at its meetings and the purpose s