PALALNI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION Vs. S BAGIRATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS Palani Catholic Mission a religious institution and it is so apparent requiring no further investigation is the question that comes up for consideration in these review applications No. 8 and 9 of 1997. The suit property belongs to this Palani Catholic Mission. The respondent is the lessee of the land. The super-structure was put up by the respondent. A suit for recovery of possession was filed in 1969. A compromise decree was passed, whereunder the respondent agreed to give vacant possession in one year. At this time, the City Tenants Protection Act hereinafter referred to as the Act had not been extended to Palani town where the property is situated. The compromise decree did not reach fruition and possession of the property continue with the respondent. Another suit for recovery of possession was filed in 1977. By this time, the Act was extended to Palani town. The respondent claiming benefits of this Act filed an application under Section 9 for buying the land. The suit was decreed and the petition under Section 9 was dismissed. Against that, the respondent filed an appeal and the petition under Section 9 was ordered issuing directions to deposit the value of the land. The Mission filed a Second Appeal before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed and so was the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed an E.P. under Order 21, Rule 34, C.P.C. for executing the sale deed after depositing the amount, though belatedly. The petitioner herein opposed the application. The District Munsif, Palani ordered the E.P. filed by the respondent and dismissed the E.P. filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession as per the compromise decree. Against the dismissal of the E.P. for delivery of possession, the petitioner filed C.R.P. 1445/88 and against the order to execute the sale deed, C.M.A.16/88 was filed. The C.M.A was transferred to this Court to be heard along with the C.R.P. By the time the C.R.P. and C.M.A. were heard, the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996 came into force exempting the tenancies of the lands owned by religious institutions from the provisions of the Act. Both the C.R.P. and C.M.A. were dismissed by this Court on 26.7.1996. Against this, the petitioner applied for Special Leave. On 28.10.1996, the District Munsif Palani ordered execution of sale deed. On 3.12.1996, the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed Review Applications 8 and 9 of 1997. These were also dismissed by this Court holding that the High Court's order had got merged in the dismissal of Special Leave Petition and therefore the review was not maintainable. Against this, the petitioner again went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed in the review application. The Supreme Court held that since, no leave was granted, there is no appeal in the eye of law in the superior Court and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. Kerala (2000 (6) S.C.C. 359), a non-speaking order of the Supreme Court would not attract the doctrine of merger. Therefore, this Court was directed to consider afresh the review petition in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. This order was passed on 2.02.2001 and in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court, these review applications have been taken up for final disposal.

(2.) MR. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner namely the Mission submitted that the language of Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended by Act 2 of 1996 is very clear and after the Act came into force i.e. on and from 11.1.1996, all proceedings that were pending abated and ceased. The learned Senior Counsel referred to various documents which would show that the petitioner came under the Roman Catholic Diocese which has its object the maintenance of Churches etc. and so obviously, it is a religious institution. He also submitted that this factor was not projected earlier because until the Act 2 of 1996 came into force, this was not relevant. He further submitted that even under the Constitution, they were guaranteed the right to administer their property and to own the same. He referred to the findings of the learned Judge that the petitioner is not a public religious and charitable institution. The Certificate of registration was produced by the petitioner to substantiate its case that it is a religious institution and the learned Judge on a perusal of the same found that it was only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore not a public religious and charitable institution. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner had registered itself as a Society would not detract from its character as a public religious and charitable institution. An application was also filed by the petitioner herein in C.M.P.9995/2001 to produce various documents in the review petition. He referred to the following decisions to support his case. (1) Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1201) (2) Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education & Two ors. (1995 (2) C.T.C. 513 (3) Ghanashyam Dass & ors. v. Dominion of India and ors. (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1004) = 1995 Writ L.R. 892 = 1995 2 L.W. 144 S.N.; (4) M. Satyanandam v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of A.P. and another (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1968) (5) 1997 (9) S.C.C 69, (6) Kiran Singh & ors. v. Chummun Paswan & ors. (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 340) (7) N. Sreedaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu 2000 3 L.W. 271 = (2000 (3) M..L.J. 616) and (8) V. Srinivasa Mudaliar v. Sri Nagareeswarar Devasthanam rep. by its. Trustee T Srinivasan. He also referred to the pleadings which ex facie would show that the petitioner is a religious and charitable institution or at any rate, is dedicated to or for the benefit of the Christian Community as a place of public religious worship. Therefore, according to him, the order deserves to be reviewed and the petitioner shall be exempted from the provisions of the Act and that all proceedings that were pending abated on and from 11.01.1996 and also the execution of the sale deed on 28.10.1996 was null and void.

(3.) IN the application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act O.P.4/77, the counter was filed by the petitioner herein stating that the petition is not in time and the respondent is a religious institution and the premises are required for the purpose of constructing a community prayer hall. This counter was filed even long before the amendment Act 2 of 1996 came into force. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition on the ground that it is out of time and also gave a finding that the suit properties are required for constructing community hall, for holding bible classes and for the Mission's own use and occupation and not for other purposes.