The main legal point established in the judgment is the waiver of the benefit of exemption and the maintainability of the petition.

Common Order:

1. The respondent/landlord filed a petition in RCOP No.1745 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, Chennai, under Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the building in the occupation of the petitioner/tenant. By an order dated 30.4.2004, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.38,693/- per month.

2. Contending that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was low, the respondent/landlord filed RCA No.812 of 2004. Similarly, the petitioner/tenant filed RCA No.1577 of 2004. Both the appeals were taken up together and by a common judgment dated 19. 2005, the Appellate Authority dismissed the tenants appeal and allowed the landlords appeal enhancing the fair rent to Rs.53,190/-. Aggrieved by the said decision, the tenant has come up with the present civil revision petitions.

3. I have heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/landlord.

4. At the outset, Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant, raised the question of maintainability of the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, on the ground that the respondent/landlord is a Public Charitable Institution, whose buildings are exempt from the purview of the Act, by virtue of a notification G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16-8-1976 issued in exercise of the power conferred under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The contention that the respondent is a Public Charitable Trust exempt from the purview of the Act, was raised by the petitioner/tenant even before the Rent Controller, but the same was negatived by the Courts below. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel contended that the orders of both the Courts below in this regard are perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. The respondent is admittedly registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar, along with the byelaws (described as Rules and Regulations of the Society) were filed by the petitioner/tenant as Ex.R2 before the Rent Controller. This Ex.R2 shows that the Society was formed in the year 1926, under the guidance of a spiritual guru. The aims and objects of the Society are detailed in Clause-II of the Rules and Regulations, which read as follows:-

"(1) To protect all living creatures from all kinds of cruelties by all possible means.

.(2) To educate public opinion in favour of vegetarianism from the point of health and the highest principles of mercy and against meat eating and drink habits.

.(3) To draw the attention of the people towards the stoppage of animal sacrifice of all kinds whether they are sanctioned by religion, or otherwise and to appeal to the authorities to have them discontinued.

.(4) To distribute suitable literature relating to "Non-killing" among the people in all the provincial languages, to carry on propaganda among non-vegetarians through propagandists and to adopt such other methods as may be appropriate for the purpose.

.(5) To take up other questions in the interests of human welfare provided they are nonpolitical."

6. Other than marking the certified copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, as Ex.R2, the petitioner/tenant marked three letters dated 9. 2001, 12. 2001 and 27. 1976 and a legal notice dated 21. 2002 issued by the respondent/landlord, as Exx.R3, R4, R5 and R6. In Ex.R3, the respondent claimed that the premises was required for promotion of their public charitable objectives. In Ex.R4 also a similar claim was made that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was required for the promotion of public charitable objectives. In Ex.R5, the respondent claimed that the premises is exempt from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. In the legal notice, Ex.R6, the respondent claimed that it is a Public Charita