Judgment.- At the time when these two ejectment suits were filed (Ejt. S. Nos. 76 and 78 of 1976), even private trusts were exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. But, pending the suits, the particular Government Order, was amended extending the privilege only to the public trusts. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in these two revision petitions is:- Whether the plaintiff is a public trust entitled to claim the benefits of the above exemption? The learned IV Judge, Court of Small Causes held:- “Therefore, (here can be no doubt that the plaintiff-trust is both a private as well as a public trust; and A careful perusal of Exhibit P-10 shows that the trust is a predominantly private trust”. In the above view, the learned Judge dismissed both the suits. 3. As against the said dismissal of the suits, the plaintiff has come foward with the above revision petitions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the testator's definite indication that his chief object was that the good services of gifts and charities should be conducted permanently and properly, that as per the statement of accounts marked as Exhibit P-14, for the years 1976 to 1978 not a single payment was made to any relation mentioned in Exhibit P-10 that all the funds of the trust were utilised for public charities as indicated in Exhibit P-10 numbering as items 70 to 88, and in view of the further fact that the payments directed to be made in Exhibit P-10 under clauses 11 to 69 are all donations directed to be made by the testator to his relations, and that, as the donees have passed away, there is no need to make any payment as directed by the testator, the trust should be deemed to be a public trust. 4. I find there is every force in every one of the points urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. A reference to items 11 to 69 in Exhibit P-10 would show that they are personal gifts to the persons indicated therein and with the passing away of every one of the donees, the purpose got terminated. Per contra, the direction as regards carrying out the trust subsists for ever. A reference to items 11 to 69 in Exhibit P-10 would show that they are personal gifts to the persons indicated therein and with the passing away of every one of the donees, the purpose got terminated. Per contra, the direction as regards carrying out the trust subsists for ever. Then it is beyond doubt that the predominant purpose is to carry out the charities as indicated by the testator in Exhibit P-10 and such charities include establishment of Ramanujakootams at (1) Madras, (2) Srivilliputtur, (3) Mannar-gudi, and (4) Tiruppakuli, establishment of one elementary school in Madras and two other schools in the mofussil, affording help to poor Vysyas and Brahmins for Upanayanams and marriages, affording financial help by way of small monthly payments to poor and infirm Vysyas, other charities, such as feeding of 8 Swam is daily in Sri Ranganathaswami temple in the Mullah Sahib St., Madras-1, performance of sundal and dadyodanam, etc., kainkaryams in selected temples, sinking or renovating drinking water wells for the use of the public, etc. Further, even according to the testator, this is the chief object with which he has created the trust. If these aspects are taken into consideration, there can be no doubt that what was endowed under Exhibit P-10 is to carry out public charities in which event the trust will be a public trust. 5. It is useful to refer to the decision reported in M. Kesava Gounder v. D.C. Rajan1, in which a Division Bench of this Court had ruled that if the purposes of the trust were to be for the advancement of the religion, knowledge, commerce, health, safety and other objects beneficial to the mankind, certainly it will be a public trust. The beneficiary may be limited to a particular section of a community and need not neces sarily be the community at large. This above principle is reiterated in the same decision, referred to above. 6. In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff-trust is a public trust; and therefore, it is entitled to claim exemption of the Government Order G. O. No. 2000, dated 16th August, 1976. In that event, they are entitled to maintain the suits and claim ejectment of the defendant in both the suits as prayed for. 7. In that event, they are entitled to maintain the suits and claim ejectment of the defendant in both the suits as prayed for. 7. The result is, the civil revision petition is allowed, the judgments and decrees of the Court below in ejectment suits O. S. Nos. 76 and 78 of 1976 are set aside and the suits axe decreed. So far as the costs are concerned, I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs throughout. In the circumstances, the defendant in both the suits is given three months’ time to vacate. P.V. ----- Petitions allowed.