Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a reversing order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. Heard Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord. 3. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant in R.C.O.P. No.2275 of 2005 only on the ground that they required the premises for the purpose of educational institution run by them. The Eviction Petition was filed under Section 10(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short `the Act). The Rent Controller dismissed the Eviction Petition, but on Appeal in R.C.A. No.84 of 2007, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction by a judgment dated 28.02.2008. It is against the said reversing order of eviction that the petitioner/tenant is before this Court. 4. Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner primarily raised three contentions, namely, — (a) that even, on admitted facts, the respondent/landlord is an educational institution, whose building is exempt from the purview of the Act by a Government Order issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 29 of the Act and that therefore, the provisions of the Act could not have been invoked. .(b) that the Appellate Authority, on facts, had no basis to come to the conclusion that there was a bona fide requirement on the part of the respondent/landlord; and .(c) that the Appellate Authority failed to take note of an Advocate Commissioners report and plan submitted in the main proceedings before the Rent Controller, only on the ground that the report and the plan were omitted to be marked as exhibits before the Rent Controller. 5. Taking up the first contention, relating to the maintainability of the Petition for eviction, on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 29 of the Act, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea of the maintainability was not raised in the eviction proceedings, either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority. However, the learned counsel submitted that being a pure question of law, it could be decided even on the basis of the admitted pleadings on record by this Court. However, the learned counsel submitted that being a pure question of law, it could be decided even on the basis of the admitted pleadings on record by this Court. In support of his contention that the plea could be raised as it is a pure question of law, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of Justice Sardar Zackria Hussain in S. Kulandaivelu v. Sowrashtra Vipra Sabha, Namakkal, 2004 (4) LW 474. 6. Before I consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 10(3)(b) and the provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act as well as the Government Order issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 29. 7. Section 10(3)(b) of the Act reads as follows: "10. Eviction of Tenants.— (3)- (b) Where the landlord of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is required for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Controller, subject to the provisions of Clause (d), for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building". 8. Sections 29 and 30 of the Act read as follows: "29. Exemptions.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, by notification, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. 30. Exemptions in the case of certain buildings.— Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to — .(i) any building for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is completed and notified to the local authority concerned; or .(ii) any residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees; (iii) any lease of a building under which the object of the tenant is to run the business or industry with the fixtures, machinery, furniture or other articles belonging to the landlord and situated in such building". 9. The Government Order G.O.Ms. 9. The Government Order G.O.Ms. No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976 issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 29 of the Act reads as follows: "No.II (2)/HO/4520/76.— In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) and in supersession of the Home Department Notification No.II(2)/HO/3811/74, dated 12th August, 1974, published at page 444 of Part II-Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the 21st August, 1974, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act. 10. On a cumulative reading of the provisions of the statute and the Government Order, it could be seen that the Act per se applies to residential and non-residential buildings owned by religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions. After making the Act per se applicable, the Act confers powers under Section 29, upon the Government, to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. In contra distinction to Section 29, the exemption under Section 30 is a statutory exemption. The exemption provided under Section 29 is actually a power conferred upon the Government to grant exemption to certain types of buildings to which the applicability of the Act, is not in question. In other words, there is a distinction between the exemption under Section 29 and the exemption under Section 30. 11. Keeping this distinction in mind, if we look at the Government Order issued, the Government Order extracted above, exempts only buildings belonging to two types of Trusts, namely (i) Public Charitable Trusts, and (ii) Religious Public Trusts of Hindu, Christian and Muslim Faiths. It is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the building in question is exempt from the very application of the Act under Section 30. The contention of the petitioner is that the building falls within the exempted category by virtue of the Government Order issued under Section 29. It is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the building in question is exempt from the very application of the Act under Section 30. The contention of the petitioner is that the building falls within the exempted category by virtue of the Government Order issued under Section 29. Therefore, in order to bring the building in question, within the purview of the exemption provided under the Government Order extracted above, it must be established that the landlord, invoking the provisions of the Act, is either a public charitable trust or a religious public trust of Hindu, Christian or Muslim Faiths. A reading of Section 10(3)(b) shows that the provision applies to religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions. Section 10(3)(b) does not deal with religious public trusts or public charitable trusts of the kind indicated in the Notification issued by the Government under Section 29. Therefore, if a Trust takes recourse to the Act for evicting a tenant, it should be established by the pleadings and by evidence that such a landlord is either a public charitable trust or a religious public trust within the meaning of the Government Order issued under Section 29. In this case, the Petition for eviction as well as the counter filed by the tenant, does not disclose that the respondent/landlord would fall under either of the two categories, namely, public charitable trust or religious public trust. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the exemption under G.O.Ms. No.2000, is patently exhibited on the basis of the pleadings, so as to enable the petitioner/tenant to raise it as a point for the first time at the stage of revision. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel, a copy of the trust deed was marked as exhibit and there was overwhelming oral evidence to show that it was a public charitable trust. But in this case, there is absolutely no pleadings or evidence to show that it is a public charitable or public religious trust and hence the plea cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of Revision. Hence the first contention is rejected. 12. In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is seen that the respondent is running a school for girls. Hence the first contention is rejected. 12. In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is seen that the respondent is running a school for girls. The requirement for which the landlord demanded the premises was that they were getting supplies for the Noon Meal Centre attached to the school and that they wanted to have access through the portion now in the occupation of the petitioner/tenant. Admittedly, the petitioner/tenant is occupying a small shop portion, which is facing the road and which is in front of a store room. There is also only one main gate to the school. The portion in the occupation of the petitioner is actually sandwiched by the portion occupied by another tenant in the north-eastern corner and a small passage. Therefore, the respondent claimed that if the portion is taken back, from the tenant, it would facilitate the arrival of the provisions and rice and other articles intended for the noon meal centre. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the requirement of the building by the respondent/landlord was not bona fide nor can it be contended that the bona fide was not made out. Therefore, the second contention cannot also be accepted. 13. Coming to the third contention, it is admitted that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the course of the proceedings for eviction before the Rent Controller and he also submitted a report along with a sketch. Unfortunately, the Rent Controller did not take the Commissioners report and the plan as exhibits and there was a failure on the part of both the petitioner and the respondent to insist the Rent Controller to take the report and the plan as exhibits. In such circumstances, the Appellate Authority could have done well to take note of the Commissioners report and the sketch, as Appeal was only a continuation of the original proceedings. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority omitted to take note of that. But it does not mean that the matter should actually be remitted back. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the Commissioners report and the sketch in the typed set of papers and I have had a look at both of them. The sketch attached to the Commissioners report shows that the school faces the road from the western side. In other words, the school is facing east. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the Commissioners report and the sketch in the typed set of papers and I have had a look at both of them. The sketch attached to the Commissioners report shows that the school faces the road from the western side. In other words, the school is facing east. There is a main gate on the south-eastern corner of a width of about 12"3. To the north of the main gate, there was a watchman room followed by a small passage and followed by the portion occupied by the petitioner/tenant. Therefore, if the portion occupied by the petitioner/tenant is vacated, the school gets two gates, both of which will actually sandwich the watchmans room. Just behind the portion occupied by the petitioner/tenant, there is a store room for the noon-meal centre. In such circumstances, the acceptance of the report of the Commissioner and his sketch would have actually established the bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent in a much more pronounced manner and it would not have helped the petitioner to avoid the eviction proceedings. 15. Being an educational institution, the respondent/landlord had satisfied the requirements of Section 10(3)(b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the petitioner may be granted time to vacate the premises. Considering the request made, the petitioner is granted time upto 30th June 2009 subject to two conditions, namely, (i) that the petitioner files an Affidavit of Undertaking on or before 312. 2008, and also (ii) continues to pay the rent duly and promptly upto the date of vacating the premises.