SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78007

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
 
K.M.Sanjeevi Raja (died) - Petitioner
Versus
Pudupalayam Sakarajakottai - Respondent
T.C.T.O.P. (MD) No.1 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Kadarkarai
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan

The rights of tenants under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act are extinguished if the property is classified as belonging to a religious charity, especially after legislative amendments.

Headnote:(A) Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 - Section 9 - Tenants’ petition for sale of land - Petition dismissed due to amendment exempting religious institutions from tenant protection - Original tenant had rights under the Act prior to the amendment - Claiming benefits under Act excluded for religious charities - Thus, cause of action extinguished for petitioners. (Paras 1.2, 7.7, 7.29)

(B) Judicial precedents on public and private trust - Distinction upheld between public charity and private interests - Trust property must serve a public charitable function to be exempt under the Act. (Paras 7.20, 7.28)

Facts of the case:
The original tenant’s petition sought to enforce rights under the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act concerning property used for a rice mill business, now claimed to be part of a religious trust. Complications arose post tenant's death and amendments to the Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found that no rights remain under the Act due to the religious charity amendment. Original tenant's rights extinguished.

Issues: The principal questions involved whether the application abated due to law changes and if tenants were entitled to claim property sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The statute protects religious trust properties from tenant rights, establishing non-applicability based on public charity functions.

Result: TCTOP (MD) No.1 of 2024 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of jurisdiction and case details (Para 1)
2. petitioner's claims regarding tenancy and usage (Para 2)
3. respondent's objections to the petition (Para 3)
4. evidence and witness examination (Para 4)
5. arguments presented by both parties (Para 5)
6. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 6 , 7)
7. conclusion and dismissal of the petition (Para 8)

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

A. Prelude:

This Transferred City Tenant Original Petition (TCTOP) arises out of O.P.No.139 of 1979, in O.S.No.224 of 1979.

1.1 On 09.07.1979, the said suit was filed with the reliefs directing the defendants to vacate and surrender the possession of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. Admittedly, the tenancy is only concerning land and the original first petitioner/tenant had put up superstructures.

1.2 The present original petition was filed by the first petitioner/tenant under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), with a prayer to direct the respondent/landlord to sell the vacant land described in the schedule to the petition being part of the suit property to the petitioners 3, 6 and 7/tenants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

1.3 Since the year 1979, the matters were kept pending and in the connected Civil Revision Petition (MD) No.1050 of 2023, this Court passed a detailed order on 10.07.2024, withdrawing the suit as well as the present TCTOP to the file of this Court. The said Order may be read as part and parcel of this order. The TCTOP was transferred and re-numbered as TCTOP (MD) No.1 of 2024 and the same is taken up for further hearing and disposal.

1.4 When the matter came up for hearing, both sides learned counsel submitted that even though the above-connected Civil Revision Petition was filed regarding an interlocutory order regarding the recall of P.W.1, both sides have already let in evidence and their respective evidence on record. They do not press further prayers of recalling the PW-1 and submitted that for both sides no further evidence needed be let in the TCTOP and as such, the present TCTOP is taken up for disposal by way of this order.

B. The Case of the Petitioners:-

2. A careful handling and perusal of the decrepit papers of the present case reveals that the petition was filed by the original petitioner/tenant – K.M.Sanjeevi Raja, which is being continued and pursued by his legal heirs. The property described in the petition is a vacant site belonging to the respondent/landlord. The same was leased to the original first petitioner, in 1945 for the purposes of putting up superstructure and installation of rice, flour and oil mills, and boilers. The deceased first petitioner had put up rice, flour, oil mills and boiler plants on the premises constructed a compound wall and erected platforms and a shed in the southern portion of the suit property. The value of the superstructure construction is over Rs.2 lakhs. The original rent for the premises, i.e., the vacant site was Rs.140/- per annum and it has been periodically enhanced to Rs.960/- per annum. The rents are being collected every year. It is not a case of monthly tenancy. The business is the only source of livelihood for the deceased first petitioner and his family. The entire vacant land is absolutely necessary for the deceased first petitioner for the purpose of rice, flour and oil mills. The existing platform is not sufficient for drying the boiled rice and keeping the bags. The small front portion in the south abutting Tenkasi Road is also necessary and is used as the entrance for loading and unloading.

2.1 There is a Well on the north side of the petition property. The Well is part of the Nandavanam of the respondent. As an amenity for convenient enjoyment of the demised premises and for the purpose of the boiling rice, water from the Well was taken by the deceased first petitioner and the charges for water being paid and the rates being fixed according to the convenien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top