SUKHRAJ BHAWARLAL Vs. JAWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders dated 4.3.2005 made in R.C.A.Nos. 174, 198, 178, 177, 179, 180, 175 and 462 of 2003 respectively, passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai.) Common Order: Aggrieved over the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority holding that the second respondent is not a public trust and therefore the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is applicable to the premises, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

(2.) IN all these CRPs the petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent is the chief tenant and the second respondent is the trust, owner of the premises at No.11, Kasi Chetty Street, Chennai-79. The tenants are in occupation of various shop portions paying a monthly rent of Rs.10,050/= p.m., each. Except CRP.No:1305 of 2005, in all the other CRPs, the first respondent filed RCOPs for eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default in payment of rents for the period from December 1997 to April 1998. As regards CRP.No:1305 of 2005, the RCOP was filed by the first respondent on the ground of subletting. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCOPs as not maintainable on the ground that the petition premises is being owned by the second respondent, a public trust which is exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The first respondent filed Rent Control Appeals and the appeals were allowed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority holding that the second respondent is not a public trust and therefore the RCOPs are maintainable, that the tenants in CRP.Nos.1298 to 1304 of 2005 have committed willful default in payment of monthly rents, that the tenant in CRP.No:1305 of 2005 had sublet the shop portion and ordered eviction of the tenants giving a month's time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved over the said order, these CRPs are filed by the tenants.

(3.) SIMILARLY in 2001 (1) LW. 652 (SC) (Mullam Gulam Ali and Safiabai O.Trust Vs. M/s. Deelip Kumar & Co), the Honourable Supreme Court held that the control vested in a group of people will not itself take away the public character of the Trust and if the Trust is not administered properly, proceedings can be filed under Section 92 of the CPC for framing a scheme for proper administration and by displacing the trustees.