- (1.) COMMON ORDER: The above Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 23.12.1994 made in T.C.T.P. Nos. 203 of 1987 to 205 of 1987 respectively by the Revenue Court, Madurai, thereby challenging the decision arrived at by the said court that the petitioner/Trust represented by three Trustees have no locus standi to institute the said petitions since the nature of the Trust, the right to trusteeship and management of the trust properties including the lease amount, which is the subject matter of the petitions and the performance of religious functions have all along been a matter of dispute for many years and thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the revision petitioners herein for eviction of the respondents/tenants for wilful default in payment of the lease rents.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the dismissal of the petitions, filed for eviction of the tenants, the revision petitioners have come forward to file the above three Civil Revision petitions on grounds such as (i) that the order of the Revenue Court is contrary to law and without jurisdiction; (ii) that the Revenue Court materially erred in dismissing the applications for eviction on ground that the petitioners are not competent to represent the Trust thus without going into the merit of the matter; (iii) that the Re venue Court ignoring the vital document i.e. the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R.&. C.E. in A.P. No. 25/1981 "dated 21.9.1981 thereby confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. declaring the petitioner/Trust as a private Trust and not a religious institution under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and further recognizing the petitioners as Trustees, has bluntly passed orders stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petitions; (iv) that the Revenue Court failed to note that the suit filed in O.S. No. 12 of 1982 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai as against the order of the Commissioner. H.R.& C.E. was dismissed for default on 20.9.1989 and therefore the order of the commissioner, H.R. & C.E has become final; (v) that me Revenue court ought to have seen that the petitioners have filed the suit in O.S. No. 142 of 1972, which was renumbered as O.S. No. 192 of 1982 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for declaration and injunction in respect of the Trust properties against the villagers and also the tenant/respondent herein and in the said suit, interim injunction was granted in respect of the Mutt and Mutt buildings and so far as the respondents/tenants are concerned, the injunction was dismissed holding that they are the tenants and therefore the Revenue Court is not right in holding that the petitioners are not competent persons to represent the Trust; (vi) that the Revenue Court ought to have seen that the respondents herein filed suits in O.S. Nos. 145/77, 146/77 and 60/77 on the file of the District munsif, Melur, which on transfer to the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Mudurai got renumbered as O.S. Nos. 195/85, 198/.82 and 196/82 for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein and therefore it is not open to the respondents now to deny the status of the petitioners as Trustees, in view of the compromise decree in the aforesaid suit and (vii) that me Revenue Court ought to have gone into the merit of the case and ought to have allowed the applications for eviction on ground of wilful default in payment of rents and hence on all the above grounds, the revision petitioners would pray for setting aside the order of the Revenue Court, Madurai. Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for"the revision petitioners would briefly contend that the petitions filed before the Revenue Court got dismissed on one and the only legal ground that neither the petition/Trust had locus standi to file such applications nor the trustees shown therein have been declared Trustees of the petitioner/Trust but not oh merits, in spite of placing vital documents to the proof of the maintainability of the petition. Nevertheless the authority below failed to assess the facts of the case in order to arrive at a decision on facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of law, in a binding manner as a result of which testifying the validity of such an inconsistent order passed by the authority below, me petitioners/Trustees have come forward to file the above revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further point out that locus standi of the. Trust to file such petitions and competence of the Trustees to represent the Trust have been dealt with by the appropriate authorities i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of H.R. & C.E.., who declared mat the Trust is a private Trust and the Trustees are competent persons, which came to be confirmed later, on appeal preferred by the respondents, by me Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. as per his-order in A.P. No. 25/1981, dated 21.9.1981 and in spite of such declarations, the Revenue court failed to focus its attention on these vital documents and hence the order passed by me authority below become liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel would further argue that the defence of the tenants is that it is not the petitioner/Trust but it is the villagers who are the competent persons to the such applications before the Revenue Court. But, in fact, there is no such declaration or authorisation for the so-called villagers and hence mere is no basis or foundation, for such an argument advanced on the part of the respondents/tenants. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that after the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. passed orders, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 192 of 1982 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for declaration and injunction in respect of the Trust properties and the said suit had been decreed exparts and the Interlocutory Application filed in LA. No. 185 of 1992 for setting aside the exparte order having been allowed on 31.1.1994 now the said suit is pending trial and the question of title is yet to be decided in me civil suit and hence only after a decision is struck by the Civil Court in the above suit, the applications would become maintainable.
(3.) ON me contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point but mat in me said suit, the villagers and the respondents herein are the defendants and interim injunction was granted in respect of me Mutt and Mutt buildings against the villagers though not against the respondents and since the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 empowers the Revenue Authorities to pass then-own orders, entertaining such applications is well within the bounds of their jurisdiction; mat the civil suit filed on what ever prayer is only a bar so far as the powers of the Revenue Authorities enshrined in the said Act is concerned and since the bar of jurisdiction is operative, the decision mat is going to be taken in future by the civil Court cannot in any manner obstruct the Revenue Authorities from entertaining such applications, holding enquiries and disposing them of and hence on materials available, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Court having jurisdiction to act in accordance with law and dispose such application. It is the settled law that in case of conflict between the provisions of the Special Act and mat of the general enactment, the Special Acts always prevail over the provisions of the general enactments and as such, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 since being a Special Act and since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically barred and no civil suit, much less kept pending could deter or bar any such application being filed before the Revenue Authority named therein and hence the application filed before the Revenue Court cannot be testified or questioned before the Civil Court nor could the Civil Court pass any such order regarding those powers which are specified under the said Act. In the above circumstances, the only point that is to be decided is. Whether the Revenue Authority as the Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court was right in rejecting the application on ground of maintainability for the reason that the petitioner/Trust has no locus standi to maintain application of that sort, which have been filed before the Revenue Court" ;