No discrimination between citizens/tenants due to enactment of the Amendment Act, 1996.

S.Jagadeesan, J: In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.1 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, (1972)2 M.L.J. 485: 85 L.W. 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Sec.9 of the Main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with the right of the tenants under Sec.3 of the said Act 3 of 1922.

3. In fact we had an occasion to deal with this batch of cases earlier and we dismissed all the writ petitions by our judgment dated 30.8.2000 holding that since the judgment in Varadaraja Pillai’s case, (1972)2 M.L.J. 485: 85 L.W. 760 was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.187 and 273 of 1973 and the appeals having been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 10.9.1986 the judgment in Varadaraja Pillai’s case, got merged with the judgment of the Apex Court dated 10.9.1986 in C.A. Nos.187 and 273 of 1973 and on the ground of doctrine of merger, it is not open to us to reconsider the Apex Court judgment.

4. Some of the petitioners herein took the matter on appeal in C.A. Nos.2480 and 2481 of 2001 etc. The Apex Court by judgment dated 18.9.2002 allowed the appeals and set aside the order of this Court dated 30.8.2000 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal by this Court. The Apex Court was of the view that its decision in Varadaraja Pillai’s case, (1972)2 M.L.J. 485: 85 L.W. 760 will not attract the doctrine of merger, since the Appeal Nos.187 and 273 of 1973 were dismissed on the technical ground without any law being laid. Hence, the batch of cases is taken up for final disposal.

5. The petitioners are admittedly the owners of the superstructures in the site belonging to the various religious institutions each of which is one of the respondents in the respective writ petitions. In fact the religious institutions leased out the site to the petitioners on various terms and conditions and the petitioners, with such sanction of the landlord, have constructed the building. In some of the cases the owners of the land, the religious institutions filed the civil suits for recovery of possession of the respective properties in accordance with the terms of the lease.

6. As Act 3 of 1922 confers a right on the tenant to file an application under Sec.9 of the said Act, seeking for the conveyance of the land, the petitioners in some of the cases filed petitions under Sec.9 and got favourable orders.

7. Now by virtue of the amendment introduced to the main Act through Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996, the properties owned by the religious institutions were exempted from the purview of the Act. The petitioners filed these writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the said Act.

8. When originally these writ petitions were listed before the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.A. Swami, the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr.Justice AR. Lakshmanan while the learned Judges heard the matters, the Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court in Varadaraja Pillai’s case, (1972)2 M.L.J. 485: 85 L.W. 760 and contended that the amendment introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996 is identical to an earlier amendment introduced to the main Act under Sec.2 of the Amending Act 13 of 1960 whereby the first proviso to Sub-sec.(3) o