S RAMIAH Vs. ARIYAKUDI KALYANA KRISHNA HOSPITAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the lessor who was a trust against the appellant. Both the Courts below have granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff not only for possession but also for a sum of Rs.915.80 by way of arrears of rent. The suit was originally filed by the trust represented by its Managing Trustee. When the appeal before the lower appellate Court was pending, respondents 2 to 4 herein filed two applications by one of which they sought to come on record as parties on the footing that they had become the owners of the property by virtue of a registered exchange deed dated 26.5.1982. By the other application the respondents 2 to 4 sought the permission of the Court to be represented by their power of attorney agent by name Raja Madhava Kalanidhi. Both the applications were ordered by the lower appellate Court, and two revision petitions were filed by the present appellant. They were numbered as C.R.P.Nos. 5223 and 5224 of 1983. They were disposed of by a common order dated 11.1.1984 which is in the following terms:

(2.) The lower appellate court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court, but unfortunately did not take care to specify whether the decree was in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 or not. That is an incidental technical objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The substance of the judgment and decree have to be understood as granting a decree in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 who have become the owners of the property.

(3.) Four objections are raised by learned counsel for the appellant/tenant. The first is that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act became applicable to the suit property when the respondents 2 to 4 became the owners thereof. It has to be mentioned that in both the courts below a contention was raised that the plaintiff/trust was not a public charitable trust within the meaning of G.O.Ms.No. 2000, Home, dated 16.8.1976. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me also that the trust was not a public charitable trust and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act were applicable to the property even at the time of the institution of the suit. A perusal of Ex.A-1, the trust deed, puts the matter beyond doubt that the trust is a public charitable trust which would come within the scope of G.O.Ms.No. 2000, Home, dated 16.8.1976. There is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the trust was not a public trust.