Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2004 in C.M.A.No.13 of 2004 on the file of V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dismissing the appeal dated 14.11.2003 in I.A.No.2092 of 2003 in O.S.No.2360 of 2002 on the file of XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.) The petitioner has sought for setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 8.10.2004, passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2004 on the file of V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, preferred against the order dated 14.11.2003 made in I.A.No.2092 of 2003 in O.S.No.2360 of 2002 on the file of XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner herein is the third defendant in the suit. 2. The respondent-Temple filed a suit in O.S.No.2360 of 2002 seeking for a decree of recovery of possession of the Temple property from the petitioner and two others and pending the suit, the petitioner herein/third defendant filed application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act seeking for a direction to sell the property held in possession to her and the Trial Court dismissed the application as not maintainable in view of Act 2/1996 and the petitioner herein preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.13/2004 and that was also dismissed and challenging the said orders, the present revision has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-Temple is a private Temple and it is not a religious institution as stipulated in Act No.2/1996 and hence the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner claiming the benefit of Section 9 of City Tenants Protection Act is bad in law. 5. By virtue of Section 2 of Act 2/1996, Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was amended and in the sub-Section providing for exemptions from the operation of the Act, clause (f) was added and in that process exempting tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Mylapore Club V. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ( 2005 (9) Scale 150 ) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 2 and 3 of Amending Act, viz., Act 2/1996. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Mylapore Club V. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ( 2005 (9) Scale 150 ) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 2 and 3 of Amending Act, viz., Act 2/1996. As per the amending Act, "religious institution" means any temple which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, any community or section thereof as a place of public religious worship. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Temple is used as a place of public religious worship. In such circumstances, the provisions of the City Tenants' Protection Act shall not apply to the tenancies of land owned by the respondent-Temple and both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected CMP.No.2465 of 2005 is also dismissed.