Judgment :- 1. G.Ganesan is the tenant and P.V.Rajapandi is the landlord. The tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu for a bare injunction contending that the landlord was trying to forcibly evict him without adopting due process of law. Besides resisting the said suit, the landlord filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpettu for eviction of the tenant based on the alleged termination of lease probably on the belief that Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was not applicable to the suit property. 2. Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment, O.S.No.345 of 2006, namely the suit filed by the tenant was dismissed and O.S.No.174 of 2007, namely the suit filed by the landlord was decreed. Challenging the said decrees passed by the trial Court dated 30.07.2010, two appeals came to be filed by the tenant, namely A.S.No.33 of 2010 against the decree passed in O.S.No.174 of 2007 and A.S.No.34 of 2010 against the decree passed in O.S.No.345 of 2006. Both the appeals were jointly heard and disposed by the learned Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu by a common Judgment and decrees dated 29.06.2011 confirming the decrees passed by the trial Court in both the cases. As against the decree of the appellate Court made in A.S.No.33 of 2010, S.A.No.819 of 2012 has been filed. As against the decree passed in A.S.No.34 of 2010, S.A.No.820 of 2012 has been filed. In both the second appeals, the tenant is the appellant and the landlord is the respondent. 3. The respondent entered a caveat in the S.R stage itself and he is represented by a learned counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submits that the Second Appeal No.819 of 2010 involves a substantial question of law which is as follows: "Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction stood ousted by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in the absence of a finding by the Rent Controller that there is a denial of title and the denial is a bonafide one? " 4. " 4. Since the appellant relies on the notification by the Government of Tamil Nadu upgrading the erstwhile Town Panchayat of Maraimalai Nagar within which the suit property situates and contends that from the date on which it was upgraded to a Municipality, the rent control Act stood attracted, the learned counsel for the respondent concedes the said question is a question of law that could be raised in the said second appeal. So far as the other second appeal, namely S.A.No.820 of 2012 is concerned, admittedly there is no such direct question of law involved. However, it is admitted that the sustainability of the claim for injunction shall largely depend upon the outcome of the above said question involved in S.A.No.819 of 2012. In the light of the fact that the landlord has chosen to approach the Court for eviction, the said appeal also can be taken as an appeal fit for admission on the following question of law: "Whether the appellant in S.A.No.820 of 2012 (tenant) is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction when the respondent/landlord has chosen to file a suit for eviction without taking any forcible steps to evict the tenant otherwise? " Hence those two questions are framed as Substantial questions of law respectively in S.A.No.819 of 2012 and 820 of 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent agreed that both the cases can be disposed of on the resolution of the above said pure questions of law and hence, a final disposal of the second appeals can be given at the time of admission itself. Accordingly, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides on the above said questions of law, the following judgment is pronounced:- (i) It is not in dispute that the appellant in both the appeals is the tenant and the respondent in both the appeals is the landlord and that the tenancy is in respect of a residential portion situated within erstwhile Maraimalai Nagar town panchayat. It is brought to the notice of the Court that long prior to the filing of the suits, the said town panchayat was upgraded into a third grade municipality with effect from 14.06.2004. It is brought to the notice of the Court that long prior to the filing of the suits, the said town panchayat was upgraded into a third grade municipality with effect from 14.06.2004. The relevant Government Orders came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.270, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 11.06.2004, G.O.Ms.No.277, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 02.07.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.300, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 24.08.2005. The notifications of the Government, having the force of law, can be looked into and the Court itself can take judicial notice of it especially when the same is not disputed. By such notification, the entire area comprised in the erstwhile town panchayat of Maraimalai Nagar become part of the third grade municipality of Maraimalai Nagar. The effect of such upgradation/reclassification of the erstwhile town panchayat into a third grade municipality, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, shall be the automatic application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 from the date of such upgradation. Section 1(2) dealing with the application of the said Act is extracted hereunder: [(a)(i) This Act, [except sub-section (2) of Section 3] shall apply to the City of Madras [and to the City of Madurai] and to all municipalities constituted or deemed to have been consitituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920) in the state: Provided that the Government may, by notification, direct that this Act shall cease to apply to any municipality specified therein or to the City of Madras [or to the City of Madurai] from such date as may be mentioned in the notification. [(ii)Where this Act had, under the proviso to sub-clause (i), ceased to apply to any such municipality or City as is mentioned in that proviso, the Government may, by notification apply this Act, except sub-section (2) of Section 3, to any such municipality or city with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification.] (b) [Sub-section (2) of Section 3} shall apply to the City of Madras [or to the City of Madurai] or any municipality consitituted or deemed to have been constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), in the state only from such date as the Government may, by notification, appoint [and the Government may, cancel or modify any such notification]. (c) The Government may, by notification, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act except sub-section (2) of Section 3, to any other area in the state with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification and may cancel or modify any such notification. (d) Upon the issue of a notification under the proviso to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) or of a notification of cancellation under clause (b) or clause (c) this Act or as the case may be, the provision thereof, shall cease to apply, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such cesser; and Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891, (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1891), shall apply upon such cesser as if this Act or such provision had then been repealed by a Tamil Nadu Act; but such cesser shall not be deemed to affect the power of the Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) or under clause (b) or clause © again to apply this Act or any such provision to any area mentioned in that sub-clause or clause." (ii) The only question that arises for consideration is when the local body had not been designated as a municipality on the date of coming into force of the Act, whether the subsequent designation of the local body into a Municipality without a further notification extending the provisions of the Act, shall make the provisions of the Act applicable to the areas covered by such newly constituted Municipality or upgraded local body into a Municipality. The provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act do not restrict its application to the municipalities that were in existence as on the date of publication of the Act in the gazette. It is made applicable to all the Municipalities. An Act may not be applicable to a person, to an entity or to an area at its inception because such person, entity or the area might not have conformed to the descriptions to bring him/it under the purview of the Act. But, subsequently when such person or the entity, by change of law, acquires the status which brings him or it within the purview of the Act, then it cannot be said that a further act on the part of the State extending the provisions of the Act even to such person or such entity is necessary for applying the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the Act provides for extending the provisions of the Act even to areas which do not come under the definition of Municipalities. That means, the Government, if it thinks fit, can extend the provisions of this Act to a major or minor village panchayat. Only in respect of those areas which are not covered by such Clause 2, a notification is needed. As such, this Court is satisfied with the soundness of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that from 14.06.2004, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 became applicable to the suit property and hence, the suit filed by the landlord, namely O.S.No.174 of 2007 is barred by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. In case the Rent Controller decides that the title of the landlord has been denied by the tenant and the denial is bonafide, then the parties could be referred to the Civil Court whereupon a suit for eviction will be maintainable and it is not the case here. (iii) Thus, the substantial question framed S.A.No.819 of 2012 is decided in favour of the appellant and it is hereby held that the suit for eviction before the civil Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Second Appeal No.819 of 2012 is bound to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Second Appeal No.819 of 2012 is bound to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. (iv) So far as S.A.No.820 of 2012 is concerned, unless the appellant, who figured as the plaintiff seeking bare injunction, is able to satisfactorily prove that the landlord is taking illegal measures to evict the tenant and the landlord is trying to forcibly evict without adopting due process of law, the appellant/tenant cannot succeed in getting a decree for permanent injunction against the landlord. In this case, no doubt when the landlord demanded the tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession, the tenant seems to have approached the civil Court for a permanent injunction apprehending that the tenant may be evicted. When the tenant approached the civil Court for such a relief, the landlord filed a suit for eviction. Both the suits were filed in the civil Court on a wrong impression that rent control Act was not applicable to the suit premises. Now, it is brought to light that Rent Control Act is applicable to the suit premises. The very fact that the landlord has chosen to approach the Court for eviction will show that the landlord is not bent upon forcibly evicting the tenant without adopting due process of law. In this regard, the findings of the Courts below cannot be disturbed as perverse and on that score alone, the decree passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be confirmed; Resultantly S.A.No.820 of 2012 fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. v) Accordingly, S.A.No.819 of 2012 is allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.174 of 2007 which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. O.S.No.174 of 2007 shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are closed. S.A.No.820 of 2012 is dismissed confirming the decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. No costs. Though it is not necessary, by way of clarification it is pointed out that landlord shall always have the right to approach the Rent Controller for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.