VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law that has been framed for consideration in this Second Appeal is as follows: "Whether the Respondent Society is a Trust as defined under the Trust Act to fall under the purview of G.O.Ms.2000 Home Department dated 16th August 1976, to be exempted from the provision of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, more particularly when it is registered as a society on 5.7.1922 under Societies Registration Act"

(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent herein filed O.S. No. 200 of 1995 to direct the appellant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit scheduled property which is a shop in which the appellant was inducted as a tenant to run a cycle shop. THE appellant was running a cycle shop under the name and style of "Maruthy Cycle Mart". According to the respondent a notice to quit was given to the appellant on 27.4.1995 and inspite of the notice since the appellant failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit scheduled property the respondent was obliged to file the suit.

(3.) MR. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would otherwise contend that the appellant having accepted the status of the respondent as its landlord as disclosed in his written statement filed in the suit and in the absence of any specific contention having been raised in the suit about the status of the respondent or its competence to maintain the suit, the courts below were fully justified in holding that the respondent was entitled to seek for eviction in its capacity as the owner of the suit scheduled property. The learned counsel further contended that when the appellant himself filed the suit against the respondent and thereby recognising the status of the respondent as the owner of the suit scheduled property, it is not open to the appellant to take a different stand. As regards the other contentions the learned counsel by relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Mulla Gulam Ali and Safiabai D. Trust v. Deelip Kumar and. Co. (2001 1 L.W. 652 = 2001 (I) CTC 688) and judgment of Justice Abdul Hadi, J. reported in Ranjan Deva Shayam v. Hindustan Bible Institute of India (1996 1 L.W. 533) contended that what is to be seen is the object of the institution as to whether it was for the purpose of carrying on any public charitable cause and not the nature of its character.