RAJASEKHARAN Vs. PARAMARTHA BHUSHANAM NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY CHGRITIES NATHELLA NARAYANA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These various revisions filed by the individual tenants under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, 1960 arise on the following meterial facts.

(2.) The property in question, which is situated in Tirupathi originally belonged to the family of one Nathella Sampathu Chetty, a philanthropist of Madras. The building consisted of a ground floor consisting of two portions and a first floor which was consisting of about twelve rooms. The two par- tions in the ground floor as also the individual rooms in the first floor were let out, some to students and some to employees on varying rates of monthly rent. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, by a will executed by him before his death, donated the house property at Tirupathi for charities to be run under the name of ''Messers. Paramarth Bhasha- nam Nathella Sampathu Chetty Charities". Neither the will nor a copy thereof have been produced despite repeated and adequate opportunities given .It is, however common ground that the object of the trust is to render financial aid to poor people for marriage purposes, to feel Brahmins during Brahmostavam time at Tirupathi Pilgrim Centre and to render financial aid for educational purposes. Members belonging to the family of Nathella Sampathu Chetty were constituted trustees. In the year 1978, the trustees decided to convert the building into a big building to be stayed as "Ramanujakutam" With a viert to "- vert the said building into a big choultry so as to accommodale and serve the needs of the public for the purpose of marriage, Upanayanams and other charitable purposes, certain major repairs, alterations and additions required to be made both on the ground floor and the first floor, The proposal was also to demolish the rooms in the first floor and construct a big hall. With that purpose in view, the petitioner-trustee required its tenants in occupation of different portions of the building to vacate the same. Some of them vacated, but nine such tenants, who were occupying different rooms in the first floor of the building, did not vacate the rooms in their respective possession. The petitioner charities thereupon filed eviction petitions in R C C Nos. 15 to 19 and 23 & 24/79 which came to be disposed of by a common juegment by the Principal Rent Controller Tirupati. Before the Principal Rent Controller, the tenants raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and relied for that purpose on a notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G 0 Ms No 622 dated 4-5-1960 under section 26 of the Rent Control Act. By that notification, the Government, in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 26 of the Act, exempted from the operation of the provisions of the said Act all the buildings belonging to religious and charitable institutions in the State governed by and under the Provisions of either the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 or the Endowment Regulation, 1351 Fasli. The Rent Controller held the charity to be a private trust and did not, therefore, come under the sweep of the aforesaid notification. He found the building to have been constructed prior to 1957 and therefore, he has jurisdiction to entertain the applications for eviction. Eviction was sought on three substantial grounds, viz., that the charity bona fide required the premises for its own occupation, the building was in need of repairs and required to be altered ; the tenant in each individual case has sub-let the portion in his occupation. The allegation of sub-letting has been found to have not been made out and that plea no longer survives for consideration in these revisions. Though the Rent Controller ordered eviction also on the ground that the charity required the building for necessary repairs and alterations, it is now common ground that in the absence of an undertaking on its part to restore the portions so reconstructed to the individual tenants, the charity cannot evict the individual respondents on that ground. The bonafide requirement of the charity was also found in favour of the land-lord and the eviction was accordingly ordered by the Principal Rent Controller. Seven out of the nine tenants preferred appeals before the appellate authority in R C A Nos. 2 to 8 of 1982. The appellate authority concurred with the Rent Controller both on the question of bona fide requirement and on the question that the charity is a private trust and therefore, not governed by the notification refered to above. The appeald were accordingly dismissed with costs The individual revision petitioners are the tenants who have so lost their appeals before the appellate authority.

(3.) Mr. G. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioners submitted that the charity in question is a public trust and therefore, stands governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. The notification issued under section 26 of the Act excludes such buildings. The Rent Controller has, therefore, no jurisdiction to have ordered eviction. The charity should therefore, seek the relief of eviction in other forums but not under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Mr. Sundara Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the charities, however, maintained that the charity is a private trust and the Religious and Charitable Endowments Act has no application to the property in question and the Rent Controller has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petitions and to grant relief to the land-lord.