INDUKURU VENKATARAMAIAH CHETTY Vs. PYDA ADISESHACHALAM CHETTI AND OTHERS
LAWS(MAD)-1970-11-21
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 06,1970

Indukuru Venkataramaiah Chetty Appellant
VERSUS
Pyda Adiseshachalam Chetti And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kailasam, J. - (1.) THIS petition is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed against him by the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority). The landlord -respondent is a religious trust which owns two houses. The purpose of the trust is to perform some poojas and feed the poor. The petition was filed under Section 10(3)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stating that the trust, which is a religious and charitable institution, required the building for the purpose of the institution. The purpose for which the building was required was to put up a Kalyana Mandapam, lease it out and to utilise the increased income for feeding the poor, which is one of the objects of the trust. The court below accepted the contention of the landlord and held that the building was required for the purpose of the institution.
(2.) MR . Ramamurthi Iyer, learned counsel for the tenant, submitted that this provision of law. Section 10(3)(b), is not applicable. He submitted that the benefit of this sub -section is available only to public institutions, which are religious, charitable and educational institutions, and would not apply to private institutions. The section says that when a landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it would be entitled to the benefits of the sub -section. So the institutions which are entitled to the benefit are religious, charitable, educational and other public institutions. It is not necessary that the religious, charitable and educational institutions should also be public institutions. I am unable therefore to accept the contention of the learned counsel. It was next contended that when the purpose of the trust is the performing of some poojas and feeding the poor, it cannot be said that putting up of a Kalyana Mandapam could be included within the purpose of the trust, much less would the renting out of the Kalyana Mandapam at high rates be in furtherance of the object of the trust. The learned counsel submitted that if one of the objects of the trust is to put up a Kalyana Mandapam, it may be permissible for the trust to invoke the provisions of this sub -section and not otherwise. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on two decisions of this court in Bhaktavatsalu Chetti v. Natesa Achari., (1968) 81 Mad LW 13 and in C. R. P. No. 113 of 1961 (Mad). The wording of the section which enables the landlord to get possession, namely, if the building is required for the purposes of the institution, may be compared with the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i), under which a landlord can get possession of a residential building only when he requires it for his own occupation. It is not necessary that the public institution should itself require the building for its own occupation. All that is necessary under the section is that the building should be required for the purpose of the institution. So far as institutions like religious, charitable educational or other public institutions are concerned, an unduly restricted construction of the clause should not be put unless the language of the sub -section warrants it. In my view, the intention of the Legislature was not to injure the cause of religious, charitable or educational institution by applying the provisions which are applicable to the other classes of landlords. The sub -section does not warrant the construction that the institution itself should use the building. If the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it may be permissible for the institution to use the building for feeding the poor, but not to put up a Kalyana Mandapam, let it out and utilise the income therefrom for the purpose of feeding the poor. The putting up of a Kalyana Mandapam for increasing the income would be for the purpose of the Institution. This construction does not in any way do violence to the language of the sub -section. The intention of the Legislature would not have been to adversely affect the purpose of an institution specified in the sub -section for the purpose of continuing a tenant. In Bhaktavatsalu Chetti v. Natesa Achari,, (1968) 81 Mad LW 13, the court declined to accept the request of the trustees for evicting the tenant in a residential premises on the ground that the building was required for letting it out as a Kalyana Mandapam which would fetch a higher income. With respect, I am not able to agree with the view of the learned Judge. In C. R. P. No. 113 of 1961 (Mad), the Official Trustee applied for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for using the same as a choultry as per the wishes and intentions of the settlor. The learned Judge declined to order eviction on the ground that the provision would have no application unless an institution of the type contemplated by the provision was in existence. He also rejected the contention of the institution that the intention of the settlor was to make use of the premises as a Kalyana Mandapam and therefore it was required from the respondents -tenants. The learned Judge held that under the circumstances the provisions of Section 10(3)(b) would not be applicable. With respect. I am unable to accept the reasoning for if the object of the trust was to run a choultry or to make use of the premises as a Kalyana Mandapam, Section 10(3)(b) will be applicable as the institution will be requiring the building for the purpose of the Institution and would be satisfying the requirements of the sub -section. For the reasons stated, I am unable to agree with the decisions cited.
(3.) IN the result. I accept the contention of the landlord that the requirement of the building for putting up a Kalyana Mandapam to increase its income for feeding the poor will be for the purpose of the institution and the Institution will be entitled to possession of the building. The order of the court below is confirmed and this petition is dismissed with costs. Time for vacating four months from this date.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.