HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD MADRAS Vs. MERIT EDUCATION TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.745 of 1982 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed the suit, for directing the appellant to deliver vacant possession of premises No.68, Armenian Street, Madras 1, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint on the following averments: THE property was endowed for religious and charitable purposes known to Muslim law and exempted under G.O.Ms.No.2000, from the purview and operation of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. It was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000, the tenancy reckoned as per English calendar month under a registered deed dated 1.2.1962 for a period of ten years and subsequently on the expiry of the lease, the period of lease was extended for a further period of five years. By notice dated 29.9.1981, the tenancy of the appellant was determined according to law. It was acknowledged on 30.9.1981, and a reply sent therefor offering to pay an enhanced rent, to which a suitable rejoinder was sent reiterating the demand for possession of the premises. To the rejoinder, the appellant caused a further reply dated 9.1.1982 to be sent disputing the respondent's right to evict the appellant on the footing that the premises in question was exempted from the purview and operation of the Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Since on the expiry of the tenancy the defendant had failed to deliver possession, the suit for possession came to be filed. THE suit was valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction for the relief of possession under Sec.43(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. In the plaint the respondent is stated to be a religious and charitable Trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, represented by its Secretary Mareeth Abdullah Basha.

(3.) THE trial court adverted to the various documents filed on behalf of the respondent and found that the respondent was a Trust coming within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.2000 and therefore, exempted from the application of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and that the suit was therefore maintainable. On the materials, the trial court further found that the suit property belonged to the respondent/Trust, that the appellant had been paying the rent to the respondent/Trust and it was not open to the appellant to contend that the respondent was only an agent and it could not maintain the suit.