KANDASWAMY MUDALIAR AND ORS. Vs. MADURAI T.S. NAINA MOHAMMED ROWTHER CHARITY BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE T.S.N.M. SHEIK AHMED PEER MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the learned appellate authority (Subordinate Judge), Madurai, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. C.R.P. No. 1112 of 1975 has been preferred against the order of the learned appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 452 of 1972. C.R.P. No. 1147 of 1975 has been preferred against the order of the same learned appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 473 of 1972. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction of the tenants from the portions in their respective occupation inter alia on the ground that the building was required for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants contended that as Madurai City had been declared a Corporation, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is not applicable, that there was no valid notice to quit, that they are the sub -tenants of the first respondent in the petition for eviction and that the building was not required bona fide for demolition and re -construction. These contentions were negatived by the learned Rent Controller, and eviction was ordered. Against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the civil miscellaneous appeals were filed. Both the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority on 3rd February, 1975. C.R.P. No. 1112 of 1975 was filed in this Court on 11th April, 1975 and C.R.P. No. 1147 of 1975 was filed in this Court on 25th April, 1975. While the appeals were pending before the learned appellate authority a notification dated 12th August, 1974 in G.O.Ms. No. 1998, Home, was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu exempting 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 (referred to hereinafter as "the Act"). This notification was issued by the Government by virtue of the power conferred on it under Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 of the Act states that,

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the civil revision petitioners that the G.O. aforesaid was passed while the appeals were pending before the learned appellate authority and that, therefore, the learned appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass any order disposing of the appeals. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in Ambiga Ammal v. Selvaraja Mudaliar : (1975) 2 MLJ 51 . wherein Paul J., has laid down that,

(3.) REFERRING to the decision of Paul J., Ambiga Ammal v. Selvaraja Mudaliar : (1975) 2 MLJ 51 . Gokula krishnan, J., has observed that'