Judgment :- 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. 77 of 1971 and 78 of 1971 under S. 10(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main purpose for getting these buildings 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 S. 10(3)(b) of the Act. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the requirement is for the purposes mentioned in S. 10(3)(b) of the Act and that there is no question of invoking S. 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 court, below, the respective tenants in the respective eviction proceedings have preferred the above said two civil revision petitions. 3. Mr. Velusami, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants in these revision petitions pointed out that there is specific provision in the Rent Control Act to pray for demolition and reconstruction and as such, the learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the evict on petitions filed by the landlords under S 10(3)(b) of the Act are not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the tenants also submitted that the requirement is not for their own purposes and as such S. 10(3)(b) cannot be invoked in the present case. It was further submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner-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 S. 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 18 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. Velusami submits that the court below had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order an prayed for by the respondents herein. 5. Mr. Martin, learned counsel appearing for the landlords-respondents, submitted that the requirement is for the purposes of the respondents-landlords herein and that there is no question of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act, since the respondents require the buildings for the purpose of demolishing the same end using the place for the purpose of congregation and also to erect a gate in order to have ingress and egress conveniently to the church which has been recently renovated. Learned counsel also submitted that the Government Order referred to above is not a substantive law and further there is no retrospective effect given in the said Government Order. As such, it is stated that the said exemption granted will not affect the pending proceedings. 6. I have been taken through the pleadings of the case and also certain decisions in order to substantiate the respective contentions placed by the respective learned counsel appearing in this case. It is clear from S. 10(3)(b) that the respondents who are religious institutions can get any buildings of their own for the purposes of the institution by applying to the Controller. As far as the present case is concerned, the pleadings and also the evidence clearly make out that the requirement is only for the purposes of the respondents institutions. 7. As regards the provision of law, it is clear that S. 14(1)(b) will not apply to she facts of the case since the prayer is not for demolition and reconstruction The mere putting up of a gate for the purposes of convenient ingress and egress to the renovated church, cannot be construed as putting up a new building in the place of the building that is sought to be demolished If that be so, S. 10(3) (b) will be applicable to the facts of this case and not S. 14(1)(b) as alleged by the counsel for the tenants herein. 8. 8. As far as the Government Order No. Ms. 1998 Home dated 12th August 1974 is concerned, it contemplates only exemption for the religious institutions and other charitable trusts from coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. The intention of the Government Order is only to facilitate the religious institutions to have its buildings for its own purpose without recourse to the Rent Controllers court. That does not mean the right the institution had before the passing of the Government Order has been nullified. The Government Order is only to facilitate the religious institutions to have quicker remedy for having the buildings of its own for its own purpose. If that be so, there is no question of the orders passed or pending proceedings in the Rent Controllers court under S. 10(3)(b) getting nullified. On the other band, it is clear from the Government Order that there is no question of any retrospective effect given for the exemption granted by the said Government Order under S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. 9. No doubt, there is a decision rendered by Paul J in Ambigai Ammal v. Seharaja Mudaliar 1975-2 M.L.J. 51; 88 L.W. 456 which states “The effect of the notification passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu is that in respect of the premises in question, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would no longer apply and no order could be passed in respect of such buildings under any of the provisions of the Act including S. 25 which provides for a revision to this court. Therefore I find that this court has no jurisdiction now to pass any order with regard to the premises in question and consequently this civil revision petition has to be dismissed and It is dismissed.” Mr. Veluswami citing this decision states that no order for eviction in sustainable whether is passed before the passing of the Government Order or subsequent to the Government Oder in as much as the matter is pending before this court as regards the eviction prayed for by the respondents-landlords herein. Veluswami citing this decision states that no order for eviction in sustainable whether is passed before the passing of the Government Order or subsequent to the Government Oder in as much as the matter is pending before this court as regards the eviction prayed for by the respondents-landlords herein. It is clear from the decision rendered in Ambigai Ammal v. Selvraja Mudaliar 1975-2 M.L.J. 51; 88 L.W. 456 that the effect of the pacing such Government Orders in respect of pending proceeding and also proceeding ended prior to such passing of the Government Order had not been discussed in the light of various decisions that had been rendered on such subjects. Unless the Legislature makes its effect retrospectively, the amendment will not in any way affect the pending proceedings. As far as the present case is concerned, the Government Order enacted by the Government under the provisions of S. 29 of the Act, cannot be construed as a substantive law, nor one which gives the retrospective effect to such provisions mentioned in the Government Order. To strengthen this view, Mr. Martin cited a case reported in I.T. Officer, Allepy v. Ponnouse A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 385. In that decision the Supreme Court has observed: “It is open to the Sovereign Legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation. The court will not ascribe retrospectively to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the Legislature. The Parliament can date gate its legislative power within the recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the legislature, it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found. It has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or by-law which can operate with retrospective effect.” The power conferred to pass such Government Orders is under S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1860. It has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or by-law which can operate with retrospective effect.” The power conferred to pass such Government Orders is under S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1860. The said section states— “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit. By notification, exempt, any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.” Thus the section was not empowered the Government to pass any G.O. giving retrospective effect for such amendments. Applying the abovesaid Supreme Court decision, the present G.O. cannot be considered as one giving retrospective effect On the other band, the pending proceedings are saved from the language of toe present Government Order in view of the Supreme Court decision referred to above. 10. Mr. Martin has also cited Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Narayana Rao 1974.1 M.L.J. (S.N.) 16. In this a Bench of our High Court considering the amending Act XXIII of 1973, pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, held that the amending Act could not be taken to affect pending proceedings or the decisions rendered therein. The Bench further observed: “If the Legislature intended the amendment to be retrospective so as to affect vested rights, it would have made a specific provisions for abatement of the pending proceedings and the decisions rendered therein as was done when the amending Act (II of 1962). was passed. It cannot be held that Act XXIII of 1973 either expressly or by necessary implication has provided for abatement of pending proceedings. In the absence of any such provision, it has to be taken that the amending Act was only prospective.” 11. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no such amending Act by the Legislature excepting the Government passing a Government Order under the powers conferred upon them under S. 29 of the Act. Hence, it is clear that the present Government Order can neither affect a decision rendered nor interfere with the pending proceedings in as much as there is nothing retrospective in the exemption ranted to the religious institution by the said Government Order, Mr. Hence, it is clear that the present Government Order can neither affect a decision rendered nor interfere with the pending proceedings in as much as there is nothing retrospective in the exemption ranted to the religious institution by the said Government Order, Mr. Viswuswami cited a case reported in Viswanatha v. Subbarajulu 1974 T.N.L.J. 394, in support of the decisions rendered on the strength of certain amendments to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control, Act, 1960, which were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. I do not think that they will have no bearing on the facts of the present case and as such it is net applicable in the present context 12. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court has jurisdiction to continue he proceedings which arose much easier to the passing of the Government Order referred to above. As far as the facts and the law are concerned, the respondents-landlords are entitled to have the buildings in question for their own purpose under S. 10(3)(b) of the Tamil-nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act. There is absolutely no question of any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below in favour of the respondents herein. 13. In these circumstances, both these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Time to vacate three months.