JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.2011 passed by II Additional City Civil Court (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in A.S.No.444 of 2010.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.444 of 2010 filed by the appellant against Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.2010 passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court) in O.S.No.2451 of 2008.

3. The respondent herein had leased out a property to the appellant. The respondent had filed O.S.No.2451 of 2008 against the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property under Section 9 of CPC read with Order VII Rule I of CPC.

4. In the said suit, the appellant had set up a defence that the respondent was a mere society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and was not a Public Religious Trust within the meaning of G.O.Ms.No.2000, (Home) dated 16.08.1976 and therefore the suit was without jurisdiction.

5. It was therefore argued that the eviction proceedings ought to have been initiated against the appellant only under the Provisions of the erstwhile ''Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as exemption under G.O.Ms.No.2000 (Home) dated 16.08.1976 was not applicable to the respondent.

6. Before the Trial Court, the respondent marked Exs.A1 to A5 and examined one Samuvel Paulraj, the Secretary of the respondent as P.W.1. The proprietor of the respondent Jayanthilal filed Exs.B1 to B7 and examined himself as D.W.1. The Trial Court framed the following three issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the delivery of possession of the suit property?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as claimed in the plaint?

iii. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

7. The Trail Court concluded that the respondent was a Religious Charitable Trust and therefore was exempted from initiating the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Trial Court placed reliance on the Ex.B5 Byelaws of the respondent to conclude that the activity of the respondent was a charitable in nature and therefore exempt in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.2000, (Home) dated 16.08.1976.

8. The First Appellate Court re-affirmed the aforesaid conclusion of the Trial Court in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 14.11.2011. The First Appellate Court has also extracted the objects of the respondent from Ex.A4 (Byelaws and Constitution of Lutheran Church) which reads as under:-

(a) To endeavor to work towards the spiritual growth of the Church;

(b) To gather the members into congregation for worship and for preaching the word of God and administering the sacraments.

(c) To instruct the children and young people on the fundamentals of Christian faith.

(d) To establish and administer Schools, Training Institutes, Colleges, Polytechnics and other Educational Institutions for the benefit of the under privileged especially the poor and needy among Christians and non-Christians irrespective of caste, creed, community or any other consideration.

(e) To establish and administer Hostels, Boarding Homes, Destitute Homes, Poor People's Homes and also institutions for promoting Non-formal Education, Adult Education and Continuing Education and the benefit of all these shall be available to those in need, irrespective of caste, creed or community.

(f) To establish and administer hospitals and other medical institutions, caring for the sick, without profit motive and also maintain preventive medical work, especially among the hill tribes and most backward people in the rural areas to serve the poor and the destitute without any consideration of caste, creed or community.

(g) To preach the Gospel to Christians an