Judgment :- Prayer: (The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1989 and made in A.S.No.118 of 1987 on the file of District Court, Tiruchirapalli confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1986 made in O.S.No.2050 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tiruchirapalli.) The appellants herein, who lost the case before the Courts below for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, for recovery of arrears of rent for 3 years prior to the filing of suit and for damages for use and occupation from 1.4.1981 till delivery of possession of the suit property, have filed the present Second Appeal. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that it is a public religious charitable and educational Trust and owner of the suit property, a vacant site. The deceased defendant/first respondent was a watchman of the Trust and the suit property was let out to him for a nominal rent of Rs.5/- per month and he was not regular in paying the rent and committed default from 1.4.1976 onwards. By notice dated 25.2.1981, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated, which was acknowledged by the defendant on 4.3.1981. Since the defendant failed to deliver the suit property and pay the arrears of rent, the suit was filed. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint by inter alia contending that he took the vacant site on lease long before 1955, but not the super structure and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant under the terms of oral agreement put up constructions and door number 23-B was assigned to the house. He has been paying property tax and municipal tax as the owner of the building. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to purchase the site 4. Before the trial Court, on behalf or the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.32 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 5. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to purchase the site 4. Before the trial Court, on behalf or the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.32 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.Ws1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced and the arguments advanced on either side, has dismissed the suit and held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of City Tenants Protection Act and on appeal, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. 6. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following question of law on 7.8.1992: “Whether the lower appellate Court was right in coming to a conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants protection Act even though there was no positive evidence that the defendant put up the building before the coming into force of the Amendment Act 1955 and in view of Exs.B.1 and B.2?” 7. When the matter was taken up for orders today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that subsequent to the filing of the above Second Appeal, the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) came into existence and by virtue of Sections 2 and 3 of the amended Act, the provisions of the Act, 1955 are not applicable to the religious and Charitable Trusts. The Counsel further requested that this Court may frame an appropriate question of law and decide the issue on merits, for which course of action, the counsel for the respondents also agreed. 8. Therefore, the following question of law is framed for consideration before this Court: “On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) exempting tenancy created by religious charitable institutions from the purview of the Act, whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit by holding that the respondents are entitled to the protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act?” 9. There is no dispute that as per Act 2 of 1996, the applicability of the City Tenants Protection Act in respect of the lands owned by the religious institution has been taken away and all proceedings, which have not attained finality, stood abated. The constitutional validity of Act 2 of 1996 has been upheld by the Full Bench of our High Court in N. Sreedharan Nair and Others vs. Mottaipatty Chinna Pallivasal Musli Janath and Others reported in 2002-3 –Law Weekly 291, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mylapore Club vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in 2006-1-Law Weekly 558. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a religious and charitable institution and in view of the Act 2 of 1996, the respondent, a tenant cannot claim the benefit either for compensation or for purchase of the land, which is owned by the religious and charitable institution, the appellant. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the appellant claims that it is a religious and charitable institution and comes within the purview of Act 2 of 1996, there is no material to sustain the same. This is the only paint raised for consideration before this Court. 11. A will dated 1.7.1918 has been marked as Ex.A.1 by which one Thota Rajagopals Chettiar created the appellant Trust. The functions of the Trust have been stated in the B Schedule of Ex.A.1, which are religious charitable and educational in nature. It is stated in the will that those functions have to be performed from out of the income derived from the properties, which are shown in the A Schedule. Ex.A.2 is the judgment of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Trichy made in O.S.No.46 of 1992, which has been filed by the trustees of the appellant to remove some of the trustees of the appellant and for framing of a scheme for the functioning of the Trust. In that judgment, a finding has been rendered that the appellant is a religious, charitable and educational trust on taking into consideration of the nature of the functions to be performed by the Trust. Certain other religious and charitable performance have also been stated in Exs.A.30 and 31. In that judgment, a finding has been rendered that the appellant is a religious, charitable and educational trust on taking into consideration of the nature of the functions to be performed by the Trust. Certain other religious and charitable performance have also been stated in Exs.A.30 and 31. Apart from that, in the pre-suit notice issued by the appellant in which the appellant has been described as a religious and charitable and educational Trust, which has never been disputed by the respondents. 12. In the light of the above documents, the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the appellant is not a religious, charitable and Educational trust cannot be accepted. So, the finding given by the appellate Court in favour of the appellants to the effect that it is a religious, charitable and educational Trust is unassailable. 13. Having found that the appellant is a charitable trust, the necessary corollary would be that in view of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) the benefit claimed by the respondent is not available to him. As the proceedings are still pending before this Court, as per the provisions of Act 2 of 1996, it has to be regarded as abated and consequently the question of law raised now and allowed to be argued by the counsel on either side has to be answered in negative and in favour of the appellant and consequently the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. However, there is no order as to costs. Appeal against the Decree or the District Judge, Trichy dated 10.2.89 in Appeal Suit No.118 of 1987 preferred against the decree of the court of the District Munsif, Trichy in Original Suit No.2050 of 1981 dated 30.12.86. Decree: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, the Judgment and Decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellants and of Mr. Thiagarajan, for Mr. Decree: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, the Judgment and Decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellants and of Mr. Thiagarajan, for Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate for the respondents, this Court both order and decree as follows:- 1) That the Judgment & Decree of the District Judge, Trichirapalli dated 10.2.89 and made in A.S.No.118 of 1987 (in O.S.No.2050/81 dated 30.12.86 on the file of District Munsif, Trichy) be and hereby are set aside. 2) That the Respondents herein/LRS of the Defendant be and hereby are directed to deliver possession of the suit (*) property to the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 3) That the Respondents herein/LRS of the defendant to pay Rs.180/- as arrears of rent for 3 years prior to the suit; 4. That the respondents herein/LRS of the defendant be and hereby are awarded damages for use and occupation from 1.4.81 till delivery of possession of the undermentioned property at such rate as fixed by the Court below and costs of the suit. Description of Property Trichy District, Trichy Taluk, Trichy Joint I and II Sub D.T. K. Abishekapuram Municipal 1st ward 30th block Maddonal Road Eastern Road in T.S.No.186/1 part an extent of 15 feet East to West and South to North 15 feet North, South and East of other vacant sites belonging to the plaintiff; Charity and West on the plaintiffs Trust’s house Occupied by the watchman of the plaintiff-Trust.