The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for buildings owned by Co-operative Societies is a rational classification, and the right to sue for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act is not lost by the plaintiff's previous actions before the Rent Controller.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No.2611 of 2003 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who filed the suit directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month, is the appellant.

2. The plaint in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff is the Co-operative Society registered on 20.03.1952 under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff, who purchased the same on 30.06.1989. The first defendant is the tenant in a portion in the ground floor bearing No.3 (Old No.2), Smith Road, Chennai-2 who has been in possession of the property, even before the property was purchased by the plaintiff. Therefore, after the purchase by the plaintiff, the tenancy was attorned in favour of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff wanted the premises for its own usage, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P No.3022 of 1995, seeking eviction of the first defendant/tenant, which was dismissed on 20.12.1999. As the first defendant/tenant was paying only Rs.1,700/-, the plaintiff also filed R.C.O.P No.1219 of 1996 for fixation of fair rent for the said premises. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per month against which, appeals were filed by both the plaintiff and the defendants, wherein defendants have taken a stand that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction and the order passed was non-est. Therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal. Now, the present suit for eviction is filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff being a co-operative society is exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is stated by the plaintiff that only the provisions of Transfer of Property Act will apply. The plaintiff also issued statutory notice on 06.03.2003, which was also replied on 27.03.2003. The plaintiff had also claimed damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month stating that the premises is located in the very busy commercial locality. Hence, the suit for eviction was filed.

3. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a joint written statement contending that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is applicable to the suit premises and that the Government order referred to in the plaint is not applicable to the suit building. The plaintiff having obtained a valid order of fixing the fair rent in R.C.O.P No.1219/1996, was estopped from claiming exemption subsequently. The proceedings in R.C.O.P No.2021 of 1990 for eviction filed by the plaintiff for additional accommodation was dismissed on 06.01.1993 for default, which fact was suppressed and not stated in the plaint. The plaintiff also had filed R.C.O.P No. 3022 of 1995, which was filed for eviction on the very same ground was also dismissed for default on 20.12.1999. Yet another suit filed by the plaintiff society in O.S. No.4870 of 1997 for permanent injunction was also dismissed for default on 22.03.2001. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff is not a society contemplated under the G.O. so as to claim exemption from the purview of the act. The other allegations made in the plaint and the claim of damages of Rs.50,000/- per month were denied by the defendants. The defendants further contended that there is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit and such jurisdiction does not vest with the Civil Court and the plaintiff ought to have gone only to the Rent Controller.

4. The Trial Court has framed six issues and to prove the case, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.A1 to A9 and on the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW1 and marked two documents as Ex.B1 and B2.

5. After elaborate consideration of documents and evidence filed by both the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing eviction of the suit property by the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, defendants