Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the orders dated 29.09.2000 passed by the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A.Nos.184 to 190, 192 and 193 of 1996, as stated therein.) These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the Tenants are entitled to the benefits under The Madras City Tenants Protection Act and holding that under Section 9 of The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, the Respondents / Tenants are entitled to purchase the respective portion of the demised premises. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions arise on the following common facts:- The Plaintiff is an Educational and Religious Charitable Public Trust. The Defendants are Tenants under the Plaintiff’s Trust. The Defendants have become the Tenants of the lands and the tenancy being monthly tenancy according to English calendar month. The Defendants have put up super structure in the demised property and owns building on the demised land. Issuing Notice to the Defendants, the Plaintiff Trust has determined the tenancy calling upon the Defendants to deliver vacant possession. 3. Since the Defendants have failed to comply with the demand and neglected to quit and deliver vacant possession, the Plaintiff Trust has filed number of Suits against the Defendants for delivery of vacant possession of the demised Properties. The Defendants were served with the Suit Summons on 21.03.1990 and on other dates. Within the stipulated period of 30 days, the Defendants have filed Petitions under Section 9 of The Madras City Tenants Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act”), claiming that they are entitled to the rights under the Act and are entitled to purchase the Plaint Schedule Plot of land for the value fixed by the Court. The Defendants have filed Applications under Section 9 of the Act /to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for reporting the exact extent of the Schedule mentioned plot of land; /to calculate the average market value of the Plaint Schedule mentioned Plot land for the last three years and for other purposes. In the Applications filed under Section 9 of the Act, both the Courts below found that the Respondents / Tenants are entitled to the benefits under Section 9 of the Act and on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report, the Courts have fixed the Market Value. In the Applications filed under Section 9 of the Act, both the Courts below found that the Respondents / Tenants are entitled to the benefits under Section 9 of the Act and on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report, the Courts have fixed the Market Value. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the concurrent findings of the Courts below finding that the Defendants / Tenants are entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the Act and directing them to deposit the Market Value of the amount as fixed by the Court with installments. 4. The details of the Revisions and the names of the Defendant / Tenant and the extent of the demised property and the Market value fixed by the Court thereon could be detailed as under:- 5. For appreciation of contentious points firstly, we may refer to relevant dates: Order of the Trial Court in the Petition under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act ....21.04.1995 Order of the Appellate Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals ....29.09.2000 Amendment Act II of 1996 came into force exempting the properties owned by the Religious Charitable Institutions ....11.01.1996 6. During the pendency of the Appeal, Amendment Act II of 1996 came into force exempting the Properties owned by the Religious and Charitable Institutions. Clause (f) has been added to Section 1(3) of the Act by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act II of 1996. Section 1(3)(f) is as under:- "1(3)(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion. Explanation: For the purpose of the clause, - (A) "religious Institution” means any i. Temple ii. math iii. mosque iv. Church or v. other place by whatever name known which is dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by, any community or section thereon as a place of public religious worship.” 7. The Constitutional validity of Amendment Act II of 1996 exempting the properties owned by the Religious Institutions taking away the benefits of the Tenants under Sections 9 and Section 3 of the Act was challenged by the Tenants. In the decision reported in N.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MADRAS AND OTHERS ..VS.. The Constitutional validity of Amendment Act II of 1996 exempting the properties owned by the Religious Institutions taking away the benefits of the Tenants under Sections 9 and Section 3 of the Act was challenged by the Tenants. In the decision reported in N.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MADRAS AND OTHERS ..VS.. MOTTAIPATTI CHINNA PALLIVASAL MUSLIM JAMATH, VIRUDHUNAGAR ( 2003(2) M.L.J. 164 ) Full Bench of this Court has elaborately considered the arguments advanced by the Tenants and upheld the Constitutional validity of Amendment Act II of 1996 finding that the Amendment Act does not discriminate between Citizen on the basis of Religions. Upholding the Constitutional Validity of Amendment Act II of 1996, this Court has held, "....47. it is clear that the right of the Tenant under Section 9 of the Principal Act 3 of 1992 being not a vested right, virtually no right of the Tenant in respect of the property arises for consideration in relation to any of the constitutional provisions............ 49. In our view, Section 3 of the Principal Act confers a right on the Tenant to receive compensation for the value of any building at the time of ejectment. By virtue of the amending Act, none of the provisions of the Act will be applicable to the religious institutions or religious charities belonging to the Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. Hence, the benefit of Section 3 conferred on the Tenant is also taken away by virtue of the amending Act.....” 8. Section 3 of Amendment Act II of 1996 provided for abatement of certain pending proceedings. Hence, the benefit of Section 3 conferred on the Tenant is also taken away by virtue of the amending Act.....” 8. Section 3 of Amendment Act II of 1996 provided for abatement of certain pending proceedings. Section 3 reads as follows:- "3.Certain pending proceedings to abate:- Every proceeding instituted by a Tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any Court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall, in sofar as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall, in sofar as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act cease and determine and shall not be enforceable: Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date.” 9. The Full Bench had also considered the effect of Section 3 of the Amendment Act II of 1996 in respect of pending cases. Upholding Section 3 of the Act, as per which the pending proceedings would abate, the Full Bench has observed, "...Coming to the last question of the validity of Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996, it is clear that the proceedings instituted by the tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious charities belonging to the Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion is pending before any Court or any authority abates and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the date of publication of the amending Act shall in so far as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act ceased and determined. This provision deals with the pending proceedings under the Principal Act and causes them to be abated in order to give effect to the amending Act. The proviso to Section 3 of the amending Act further makes it clear that nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit any decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date. The language of the proviso is very simple and clear. The proviso explicitly excluded the cases where the Tenants had obtained the benefits of the Principal Act by virtue of the execution of the Court decree, then such of those acts are duly safe-guarded....” 10. At the time when the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were pending, Amendment Act II of 1996 came into force. The contention of the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs is that the Pachaiyappa Trust is a Religious Charitable Institution associated with many religious festivals and observing religious character including the Charity of worship of Sabapathy Swamy at Chidambaram and many other charities. Hence, the contention of the Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs is that the properties owned by the Plaintiff Trust are exempted from the provisions of the Act as per the Amendment Act II of 1996. It is further contended that as per Section 3 of the Amendment Act II of 1996, all the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act would abate and the benefits under Section 9 of the Act is no longer available to the Tenants. It is the further contention that in view of Section 1(3)(f), the Applications filed under Section 9 of the Act by the Tenants would abate and the same has to be recorded setting aside the order made in the Interlocutory Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act and the orders passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 11. In support of the contention that Pachaiyappa’s Trust had been created mainly for religious purposes, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Trust has submitted that the original intention of the Testator was only to create Trust for religious charitable purposes and hence, the Amended Act II of 1996 is to be held applicable to the demised premises in all the cases. In support of the contention of the Revision Petitioners, the following documents have been produced:- i. the Decree of the Supreme Court and the order of the Board of Revenue relating to the Pachaiyappa Trust; ii.Scheme framed by the High Court for the Management of Pachaiyappa Trust; iii.Judgment in C.S.No.1672 of 1992 dated 29.07.2003 iv. Judgment in C.M.A.No.51 of 2002 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai. 12. The contentions of the Plaintiff Trust is objected by the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants contending that Pachaiyappa Trust is not a Religious Chartiable Trust within the meaning of Section 1(3)(B) of the Act and hence, Section 1(3)(f) would not apply to the properties owned by the Plaintiff Trust. Onbehalf of the Defendants, it is further contended that the expression "Religious Charity” is associated with mainly religious activities and the Plaintiff Trust is not a Religious Charitable Institution. Regarding the documents produced by the Revision Petitioners / Trust, learned counsel for the Respondents have submitted that evidence is to be adduced on the documents produced by the Revision Petitioners and the nature of the Trust is to be determined only by affording opportunity to both parties. 13. The "Religious Charity” is defined in defined in Section 1(3)(B) of the Act which reads as follows:- "....religious charity means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character (including a wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character) whether it be connected with any religious institution or not....” 14. Whether the Plaintiff Trust is a Relgious Charitable Institution is the question of fact to be determined on the evidence adduced by the parties. When the matter was pending before the Court below, Amendment Act II of 1996 was not in force. Hence, the issue whether the Plaintiff Trust is a Religious Chartiable Trust was not the contentious issue. Hence, the parties have not adduced evidence in this regard. Now, with the passing of Amendment Act II of 1996, it is to be determined whether the Plaintiff Trust is the Religious Charity within the meaning of Section 1(3)(B) of the Act. For determining the same, all the matters have to be remitted back to the Trial Court. Hence, the parties have not adduced evidence in this regard. Now, with the passing of Amendment Act II of 1996, it is to be determined whether the Plaintiff Trust is the Religious Charity within the meaning of Section 1(3)(B) of the Act. For determining the same, all the matters have to be remitted back to the Trial Court. Hence, the Impugned Orders are to be set aside and all the matters are to be remitted back to the respective Court for determining the issue whether the Plaintiff Trust is a "Religious Charity” within the meaning of Section 1(3)(B) of the Act and whether the Properties let out to the Tenants by the Plaintiff Trust is exempted in view of passing of Tamilnadu Amendment Act II of 1996. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the orders dated 29.09.2000 passed by the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A.Nos.184 to 190, 192 and 193 of 1996 are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to consider the Applications in IA.No.4244/90 in OS.No.11044/89, IA.No.3749/90 in OS.No. 11006/89, IA.No.4246 /90 in OS.No.11041 / 89, IA.No.3745/90 in OS.No.11004/89, IA.No.4243/90 in OS.No.11045/89, IA.No.4247/90 in OS.No.11040/89, IA.No.3744/90 in OS.No.11008/89, IA.No.3750/90 in OS.No.11002/89, IA.No.3740/90 in OS.No.11005/89 afresh in the light of the Amendment Act II of 1996. Learned First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to afford opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence to determine whether the Plaintiff Trust is Religious Charitable Trust within the meaning of Sec.1(3)(B) of the Act and whether the Demised Premises are excluded in view of the Amendment Act II of 1996. With the above directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order to costs.