Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 719 (MAD)

S. Ghouse v. Ammakamma Charities By Its Trustees

1990-08-31

SOMASUNDARAM

body1990
JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J. 1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No.8949 of 1976 on the file of XI City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants in this appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their nomenclature given in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in H.R.C.No.3082 of 1971 on the file of the VI Court of Small Causes at Madras is illegal, unenforceable and executable. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff is the tenant of the plaint schedule mentioned property under the defendants. The defendants filed eviction petition in H. R.C.No.3082 of 1971 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the schedule mentioned premises and eviction was ordered after contest on 28.11.1973. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal in H.R.A. No. 24 of 1974 and the same was dismissed on 7.8.1974. The revision preferred by the plaintiff in CRP.No.3238 of 1974 was dismissed by this Court on 16.7.1976. When the CRP was pending, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification in G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home dated 12.8.1974 exempting all the buildings owned by the religious trusts and charitable institutions from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 1960) (hereinafter called as Act). The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is not executable because the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for eviction. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal and by this Court in revision, is a nullity in law as the said order was passed without any jurisdiction and therefore the order of eviction is not executable. 2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the Government passed the order in G. O. Ms. No. 1998 Home on 12.8.1974. The petition for eviction was filed on 15.12.1971. The order of eviction was passed by on 27.11.1973. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7.8.1974. The orders of the Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority were passed before the issue of the G.O.1998 Home on 12.8.1974 and therefore, the said G.O. will not affect the validity of the order of eviction passed before G.O. Ms. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7.8.1974. The orders of the Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority were passed before the issue of the G.O.1998 Home on 12.8.1974 and therefore, the said G.O. will not affect the validity of the order of eviction passed before G.O. Ms. No. 1998 Home came into force. The said G.O. Ms. No. 1998 Home dated 12.8.1974 has no retrospective effect. 3. The trial court taking into consideration the contentions of the parties, accepted the case of the defendants and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration that the order of eviction passed in the Rent Control proceedings is illegal, unenforceable and in executable. Consequently the trial court dismissed the suit. As against the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, A.S.No.344 of 1978 before the City Civil Court (II Additional Court). The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below, the legal representatives of the plaintiff have preferred the present second appeal. 4. Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff would contend that G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home dated 12.8.1974 exempted all the buildings owned by religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Act and therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal and by this Court in. revision is not executable as the court has passed that order without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision in Thottal Monthemmal Naidu v. Kottikkollan Edavalath Nabeesa and Anr. 93 L.W. 202. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. It has to be remembered that G.O. Ms. No.1998 Home was passed on 12.8.1974. The defendants filed the petition for eviction on 15.12.1971. The order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on 27.11.1973. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on 7.8.1974. The orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were validly and rightly passed under the provisions of the Act. G.O. Ms. No.1998 Home came into force with effect from 12.8.1974. The said G.O. has no retrospective effect so as to render the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ineffective. The orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were validly and rightly passed under the provisions of the Act. G.O. Ms. No.1998 Home came into force with effect from 12.8.1974. The said G.O. has no retrospective effect so as to render the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ineffective. In Senniappan y, Sri Ranji Rao Trust by its Managing Trustee and Executive Officer, Koniamman Devasthanam (1976) T.L.N.J. 126 and in Shawani v. Mahaveer Banians Stores (1977) M.L.J. 25, this Court has taken the view that G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home dated 12.8.1974 will not nullify the order of eviction already passed inasmuch as the said G.O. has no retrospective effect. The principle laid down in Thottal Monthemmal Naidu v. Kottikkollan Edavalath Nabeesa and Anr. 93 L.W. 202, will not apply to the facts of the present case. Both the courts, below taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case have rightly held that the order of eviction passed in the proceedings initiated under the Act cannot be held to be not executable. There is no infirmity in the judgments of the courts below. There are absolutely no merits in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the second appeal is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 5. At this juncture, Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellants prays time on behalf of the Appellants to vacate the premises. Four months time is granted to the legal representatives of the plaintiff to vacate the premises on condition that they shall pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, within a period of two months from today and on further condition that they shall file an affidavit of undertaking, undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of four months granted to-day. The appellants herein shall file the affidavit of undertaking within three weeks from today.