CHELLAPPA SEBASTIAN AND ANR. Vs. R.C. DIOCESE THROUGH ITS PROCURATOR GENERAL REV. FR. S. JESUDANSAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revision petitions arise out of the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. The respondents who are the landlords filed eviction proceedings against two tenants numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 77 of 1971 and 75 of 1971 under Section 10(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main purpose for getting these buildings is to have the buildings demolished and to use the space which is opposite to the church to put up a gate and also to use the open space for congregation. Hence both the Courts below posed for decision the point as to whether the landlords requirement of the scheduled buildings in the occupation of the respective petitioners herein is for the purpose of the institution as contemplated under Section 10(3)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the requirement is for the purposes mentioned in Section 10(3)(b) of the Act and that there is no question of invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and as such the eviction prayed for by the landlords have to be granted.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Courts below, the respective tenants in the respective eviction proceedings have preferred the above said two Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the tenants also submitted that the requirement is not for their own purposes and as such Section 10(3)(J) cannot be invoked in the present case. It was further submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners -tenants herein that as per G.O Ms. No. 1998, Home, dated 12th August, 1974 the Government in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has exempted all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. If that be so, the Learned Counsel for the tenants submits that there is no question of ordering any eviction under the provisions of the Madras Act XVIII of 1960. It is clear from the facts that while the matter was pending before the lower appellate Court, the said G.O. has been passed. As such, Mr. Velusamy submits that the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order as prayed for by the respondents herein.