JANARDAN Sahai, J. - (1.) Govind Bhawan Karyalaya, the applicant in this revision filed a suit against the respondent Chhedi Lal Dinesh Kumar for eviction and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages after determining their tenancy by a notice dated 7/11-10-1999. The plaintiff is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Its case is that Gita Press is its unit and the defendant/respondent was a tenant of two shops in Gita Press Bhawan. The plaintiff claimed exemption from the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 under Section 2 (1) (bb) thereof on the ground that it is a public charitable institution. The Judge Small Causes, Gorakhpur dismissed the suit on 30-5-2003 giving rise to this revision.
(2.) THE Judge Small Causes held that in order to claim exemption under Clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 it was necessary for the plaintiff to get an exemption from the State Government under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act, which the plaintiff did not obtain. THE Court then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff could get exemption under Section 2 (1) (f) of Act No. 13 of 1972. On facts it was found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any exemption under that provision either. It was held that the plaintiff is a private charitable institution. THEre is also a finding that the rent was being paid to Gita Press and that Gita Press was, therefore, rather the landlord and not the plaintiff. Section 2 (1) (bb) exempts from the operation of the Act "any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution". This provision was introduced by Act No. 5 of 1995. Before its introduction exemption to a building owned by a public charitable or public religious institution was available if a notification was made by the State Government under Section 2 (3) of the Act. Section 2 (3) was deleted from the Statute Book. Before its omission it read as under : "(3) The State Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of general public, may by notification in the Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any building which is owned by a public charitable or public religious institution and the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for the purposes of that institution and may in the like manner cancel or amend such notification. " Rule 3 lays down the manner in which exemption of a building under Section 2 (3) is to be granted. The institution seeking exemption has to make an application to the State Government stating the ground on which the exemption is sought and in particular the interest of the general public that is likely to be served by the exemption. This statement was required so that the State Government could form the satisfaction required under Section 2 (3) of the Act as it then stood that it would be "in the interest of the general public". In contrast Section 2 (1) (bb) no longer requires any notification by the State Government granting exemption nor does it impose a pre-condition of a satisfaction that the interest of the general public must be served by the exemption. Rule 3 was meant to provide the manner in which the exemption under Section 2 (3) was to be granted by the State Government. Under the provisions as they now stand it is no longer necessary that the exemption must be granted in the interest of the general public or for the institution to establish that the whole of its income is utilised for the purposes of the institution. The effect of omitting sub-section 3, is that no such notification of the State Government is required. It would, therefore, be for the Court to determine in the suit itself whether the institution is entitled to the exemption under Section 2 (1) (bb). In this scheme of things Rule 3 has become redundant. I am supported in the view that I take by the decision reported in 1999 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 483, Nand Kishore Goswami and another v. State of U. P. and others. Sri Ramendra Asthahna, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 3 (1) has been amended by the U. P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction 4th Amendment Rules, 2002 and, therefore, it cannot be treated as redundant. The amendment referred to is an amendment in the Hindi version of Rule 3 (1) by which the words "meeje&peefveke efnle" were substituted by the words "meeoeejce pevelee kee efnle". This amendment is only in the Hindi version of Rule 3 (1) and it appears to have been made to bring it in accord with the English version, which contains the expression "interest of the general public". However, as I have already said Section 2 (3) has been omitted from the Statute Book and there is no longer any requirement to establish for the grant of exemption that it is in the interest of the general public. A rule is subordinate to the Act and it is clear from the reasons already given above that Rule 3 serves no purpose now. The amendment to Rule 3 (1) by the State Government, therefore, does not change the position and is otiose.
(3.) SRI Murlidhar who appeared for the applicant submitted that he was not claiming exemption under Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act but was claiming it only under Section 2 (1) (bb ). I shall, therefore, consider this case in the light of this provision alone. Before examining this question on merits I shall consider the contention of SRI Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents that no exemption under Section 2 (1) (bb) can be granted by the Judge Small Causes in a suit for eviction of the tenant like the present one but can only be granted by the regular Civil Court. Section 20 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 permits a suit for eviction being filed on grounds specified therein only. Unless the landlord brings his suit under one of the grounds provided under that Section the suit would not be maintainable. However, if a building is exempt from the applicability of the Act itself under Section 2 (1) (bb) or under any of the other clauses of exemption it would not be necessary for the landlord to establish any of the grounds mentioned in Section 20. He can then institute a suit after determining the tenancy by a simpliciter notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. By virtue of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Article 4 of the II Schedule of that Act a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after determination of the lease is maintainable in the Small Causes Court. All questions arising between the parties in such a suit would, therefore, have to be determined by the Judge Small Causes. Where an exemption is claimed by the plaintiff the Court would have to decide that question because upon it would depend whether the plaintiff would have to prove the existence of the grounds under Section 20 or not. When the Legislature has created a forum for deciding a particular class of suits it would be presumed to have conferred it with the jurisdiction to decide all questions that arise therein and there is no plausible reason why the question of exemption under Clause (bb) of Section 2 (i) in the same way as an exemption, under any other clause of that sub -section cannot be decided by the Judge Small Causes Court. We now come to the question whether the plaintiff is a public charitable institution. Charitable institution has been defined in Section 3 (r) as follows : " (r) "charitable institution" means any establishment undertaking organisation or association formed for a charitable purpose and includes a specific endowment; Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, the words "charitable purposes" includes relief of poverty, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of utility or welfare to the general public or any section thereof, not being an object of an exclusively religious nature. (s) "religions institution" means a temple, math; mosque, church, gurudwara or any other place of public worship and includes a waqf not being a waqf -alal -aulad. ";