Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4266
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Srimathy, J.
Jesult Madurai Province, Dindigul, Represented Through its Province - Appellant
Vs.
Basky Trust Hospitals - Respondent
S.A.(MD)No. 304 of 2015
Decided On : 30-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s.A.Sahaya Philomin Raj
For the Respondent: Mr.S. Ramesh
A public charitable institution has the authority to file a suit for eviction, and a lease agreement's expiration obligates the tenant to vacate the premises.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Suit for eviction - The plaintiff, a public charitable institution, sought possession of property rented to the defendant, a hospital, which failed to vacate despite notice - The Appellate Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's witness as unauthorized - The lease agreement stipulated a one-year term, which had expired, obligating the defendant to vacate. (Paras 1, 3, 9, 11, 12)
(B) Authority to sue - The plaintiff, represented by an authorized person, has the right to designate witnesses for the case - The Appellate Court's finding against the plaintiff's witness was incorrect. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a public religious and charitable institution, rented property to the defendant for hospital use, with a rental agreement that had expired. The defendant failed to vacate despite notice.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court's decision was set aside, confirming the Trial Court's order for the defendant to vacate the premises.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court was correct in rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff's witness and the validity of the lease agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had the authority to file the suit and designate witnesses, and the lease had expired, necessitating the defendant's eviction.
Result: Second Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.Srimathy, J.
This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2014 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.940 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per the ranking in the suit.
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.940 of 1999 inter alia praying for direction to the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit property within a stipulated time and to pay damages for all these years. The brief facts are that the plaintiff is a Public Religious and Charitable Institution functioning in the name and style of Jesult Madurai Province having its head office at Dindigul and also having properties in an around Madurai. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff's institution and the same was rented to the defendant for running a hospital namely Basky Trust Hospitals from 01.06.1998 for the monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- on or before 2nd day of succeeding English Calendar month and paid advance of Rs.50,000/- which is refundable at the time of vacating the premises. Periodically the rent was increased and at the time of filing the suit, the rent was Rs.21,600/-. The plaintiff is not a private institution but public institution relating to charitable works and the beneficiaries in numerous on numbers. The plaintiff is in need of the suit property to the welfare of the students who are studying in People College, Madurai and now temporarily functioning in I.T.I. Campus. Though the defendant has promised to vacate the suit property has failed to do the same. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a notice dated 15.07.1999 to the defendant demanding to vacate the suit property and surrender the same on or before 01.08.1999. After receiving the said legal notice, the defendant has issued a reply notice, dated 31.07.1999 stating that the plaintiff is not a public institution and is not protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and also raised various other false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit to deliver the possession of the suit property and damages.
4. The defendant has filed written statement stating that as on date the monthly rent is Rs.21,600/- and he is paying monthly rent regularly without fail. The plaintiff is not a public trust or any institution much as a religious trust. The suit for eviction of the tenant is not maintainable and the defendant is entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 , the Rent Control Court is having jurisdiction and not the Civil Court, the jurisdiction issue ought to be decided as preliminary. The other allegations are denied as false. The plaintiff's society has sold various properties and the plaintiff has intended to sell the present property for higher price. There is no bonafide intention in the eviction proceedings and the plea of own use is false. The defendant is a charitable institution granting medical assistant for deaf and dumb, and exempted from any tax. At the time of lease the building was in dilapidated condition, the defendant had repaired at his own cost, put up bridge and pathway, modified the building and also extensively done various repair works to the tune of Rs.88,000/-. Then every two years had carried on white washing at the cost of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff and the defendant had agreed for a long term lease and based on the promise, the defendant had constructed huge hospital building. Hence the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings and framed the following issues:
6. The plaintiff has marked Ex.A.1 to A.10 and exa
