Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
T.S. Ayyappan – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Khadijabai Maternity Home, A Charitable Trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts – Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No.4416 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.22595 of 2025
Decided on : 10-10-2025
For the Appellant :Mr.R.Pravesh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, Advocate
State laws govern tenancy matters for properties within their jurisdiction, irrespective of the governing law of the landlord's trust.
Headnote:In this judgment, the court analyzed the applicability of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 in the context of eviction proceedings for a property located in Tamil Nadu, stating that prior permission from the Charity Commissioner is not necessary as per Sections 50 and 51. The main facts involve an eviction petition filed by a landlord-tenant dispute based on failure to fulfill the tenancy agreement, with the court reaffirming that local tenancy laws govern the situation since the property is in Chennai. The court finds no error in the lower court's order, confirming its validity (paragraphs 2-16). The core issues were whether execution could occur without prior Charity Commissioner approval and whether the described premises were sufficiently identified for execution. The court concluded that the trust's deed was valid for eviction within Tamil Nadu under the State tenancy law (paragraphs 8-13).
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the order from the executing court is confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the eviction case and tenant's objections. (Para 2 , 4 , 9) |
| 2. court observations on applicability of laws and regulations. (Para 3 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments concerning jurisdictional compliance and prior permissions. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. ratio clarifying state jurisdiction over tenancy matters. (Para 10 , 13) |
| 5. final conclusion of dismissal and confirmation of lower court order. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
1. Heard.
2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 in E.A. No. 1 of 2025 in E.P. No. 665 of 2024, arising out of R.L.T.O.P. No. 557 of 2023 on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The said E.A. was filed under Section 47 C.P.C. Read with 37 (1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Land Lord Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as TNRRLT Act, 2017) questioning the executability of the eviction decree passed in the R.L.T.O.P.
3.For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Rent Court.
4.The respondent-landlord, a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, had filed the said R.L.T.O.P. seeking eviction of the tenant from Shop No. 3, Old No. 30, New No. 59, Broadway, Chennai-108, on the ground of failure to execute a tenancy agreement. The eviction was ordered on 15.06.2024, and E.P. No. 665 of 2024 was thereafter initiated for delivery.
5. The tenant objected to the execution mainly on two grounds:
(i) that the landlord-trust had not obtained prior permission from the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, rendering the decree a nullity; and
(ii) that the property description in the execution schedule did not tally with the actual physical layout, making identification impossible for execution.
6.The landlord contended that all procedures were duly followed, the trust deed had been filed and marked as Ex. P-3 in the R.L.T.O.P., and that similar objections had already been dismissed earlier in E.A.S.R. No. 6135 of 2025, attracting the principle of res judicata under Section 11 C.P.C. It was further urged that the tenant, being a mere occupant, had no locus standi to challenge compliance with internal trust regulations at the execution stage.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, since the trust is governed by the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 , and registered at Bombay, it was obligatory on the part of the trustees to obtain prior permission of the Charity Commissioner before initiating eviction against any tenant. In the absence of such sanction, the entire proceeding is void. The property in question, though at Chennai, continues to be governed by the Bombay Act as the trust is administered and registered at Bombay.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the eviction proceedings were instituted validly under the TNRRLT Act before the competent Rent Court at Chennai; the decree has attained finality; and the execution court rightly held that it cannot go behind the decree. It was further contended that the requirement of prior sanction under the Bombay Act does not extend to an action for eviction governed by the State tenancy law, particularly when the property is situated within Tamil Nadu.
9.Admittedly, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant stands established. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was originally enacted for the composite Bombay Presidency before its bifurcation in 1960 into the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Both States subsequently adopted and continue to enforce that Act as their respective State law. Being a State legislation, it has no operation de jure outside Maharashtra and Gujarat. Consequently, it does not extend to the State of Tamil Nadu. The extraterritorial operation of a State enactment is limited to cases having a real and substantial nexus, and that the situs of t
