http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAJENDRA SALES CORPN.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDERMULL MIMTAJI

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1994

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  (2) 286

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   This  appeal  is directed against the judgment  of  the High  Court  of  Madras in the second appeal  filed  by  the appellant  before  us.  The appellant is  the  sublessee  of premises belonging to the Pasumarthy Rukmani Ammal  Charity, which  has  been held to be a public  charitable  trust  and which is not disputed in this appeal.  The respondent is the lessee  of  the said premises.  The suit was  filed  by  the respondent against the appellant for eviction from the  said premises upon the ground that the sub-lease of the appellant had  been terminated by the respondent.  The suit was  filed upon  the basis that the said premises were exempt from  the provisions  of  the  Tamil Nadu Buildings  (Lease  and  Rent Control)  Act, 1960 read with GO No. 2000 dated  August  16, 1976  issued  by  the  Governor  of  Tamil  Nadu  under  the provisions  of  Section 29 of the said Act.   The  suit  was dismissed  by the trial court but was decreed in  the  first appeal.   The  second  appeal  before  the  High  Court  was dismissed. 2.   The  only  contention  raised before  us  is  that  the appellant, as sublessee of the said premises, is entitled to the  protection of the said Act and that the said GO has  no application. 3.   Section  29  empowers  the  Government  to  exempt  any building  or  class  of buildings from all  or  any  of  the provisions  of the said Act.  By the said GO  all  buildings owned  by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious  trusts  and public   charitable  trusts  are  exempted  from   all   the provisions of the said Act. 4.   By  virtue of Section 29 the Government is entitled  to exempt   any  building  or  class  of  buildings  from   the provisions of the said Act and what has been exempted by the said  GO  are all buildings owned by  public  religious  and charitable  trusts of Hindus, Christians and  Muslims.   The exemption,  therefore, attaches to the buildings.  The  said premises, being owned by a trust of the kind stipulated, are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

exempt from the provisions of 288 the  said  Act  and a sublessee  thereof  cannot  claim  the protection of the provisions of the said Act. 5.   Our  attention  was drawn by learned  counsel  for  the appellant  to  the judgment of this Court in  S.  Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of T. N. I wherein it was held that public religious and charitable endowments and trusts constitute  a well-recognised distinct group inasmuch they not only  serve public  purposes  but the disbursement of  their  income  is governed  by  the objects with which they were  created  and buildings  belonging  to such endowments or  trusts  clearly fall into a distinct class different from buildings owned by private  landlords and, as such, their  classification  into one group by the State Government while issuing the said  GO had  to  be  regarded  as being  based  on  an  intelligible differentia.   It was also observed that the  objectives  of the   said  Act  were  to  control  rents  and  to   prevent unreasonable    eviction   and   these    objectives    were interrelated.  It was obvious that if the trustees of public religious  trusts  and  public charities were  to  be  given freedom  to charge the normal market rent then to make  that freedom effective it was necessary to arm the trustees  with the  right to evict tenants for non-payment of  such  market rent.  The State Government, on the materials before it, had come to the conclusion that the ’fair rent’ fixed under  the said Act was unjust in the case of such buildings and it was necessary  to  permit  the trustees  of  such  buildings  to recover  from their tenants reasonable market rent  and,  if that  were so, non-eviction when reasonable market rent  was not   paid  would  be  unreasonable.   Relying  upon   these observations,  it was submitted that it was only the  lessor trust which was entitled to take proceedings dehors the said Act  against  the  lessee and not  the  lessee  against  the sublessee.  It was submitted that the whole rationale of the finding  that the said Section 29 and GO did not  contravene Article  14 was that these provisions were necessary in  the interest  of  the lessor trust and  the  lessee,  therefore, could not utilise these provisions against the sublessee. 6.   In  our  view,  the  reasoning  adopted  in  Kandaswamy Chettiar  case1 must be carried to its  logical  conclusion. Public religious and charitable trusts are given freedom  to charge  the  normal  market  rent.   To  make  that  freedom effective,  it  is necessary to arm the  trustees  with  the right to evict tenants for non-payment of such market  rent. Such  eviction cannot in fact be obtained where the  tenants have  created  sub-tenants unless the sub-tenants  are  also liable  to eviction without the protection of the said  Act. The  provisions,  therefore, of the said Section 29  and  GO attach  to the buildings owned by the religious  and  public charitable trusts and the protection of the said Act is  not available both to lessees and sublessees thereof. 7.   In  this  view of the matter, the appeal fails  and  is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8.   We  have  heard learned counsel for  the  parties.   We direct that the appellant shall not be evicted from the said premises  for  a period of 6 months from today  provided  he files an undertaking in this Court that he 1  (1985) 1 SCC 290 shall,  on or before the expiry of six months, hand over  to the respondent vacant possession of the said premises.   The undertaking shall be filed within two weeks. 289

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3