LexCHRIST THE KING CATHEDRAL versus JOHN ANCHERIL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CHRIST THE KING CATHEDRAL v. JOHN ANCHERIL AND ANR. JULY 24, 2001 B (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: Kera/a Buildings (Land and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Section 25- C Exemption notifications issued in public interest to buildings of Churches, Mosques, Dioceses. Arch-dioceses, Monasteries, Convents, Wakfs and Madarasas-Validity of-.:..Held, valid since that would benefit the minority bodies to carry out their objects effectively. State Government issued two notifications under Section 25 of the D Kerala Buildings (Land and Rent Control) Act, 1965 exempting in public interest the buildings of all Churches, Mosques, Dioceses, Arch-dioceses, Monasteries, Convents, Wakfs and Madarasas from the provisions of the Act. Writ Petitions were filed in High Court challenging the validity of the notifications. The High Court quashed the exemption notifications holding E that they were issued by the State Government arbitrarily without being supported by any material for such exemptions. Hence this appeal. The State Government contended that in another matter similar exemptions granted under another State Act were upheld by this Court. F The respondents contended that there was non-application of mind by G the State Government in granting exemptions under the Act; and that the guidelines issued by this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr .. (1985) l SCC 290 were not followed by the State Government before granting exemptions Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Public religious or charitable endowments or trust constitute a well recognised group which serves not only public purposes but also disbursement of their income, which is governed by the objects with which H they are created, and buildings belpnging to such endowments or trusts 1112 J-.-.. ... , - CHRIST THE KING CATHEDRAL v. JOHN ANCHERIL 1113 clearly fall into a class distinct from the buildings owned by private landlords. A A public trust, being a religious or a charitable institution, is not likely to act unreasonably either in the matter of enhancement of rent or in the eviction of tenants. f1116-B-U] 1.2. The purpose of the Kerala Buildings (Land and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is apparently to prevent unreasonable eviction and also to control rent. B If the trustees of religious and public charities are given freedom to charge normal market rent with further freedom to evict the tenants for not paying such market rent, th~ result would be unjust and would cause hardship. But apprehension, by itself, is not sufficient. There is no material on record to show that the landlords would resort to such a course of action. On the other C hand, it is clear that if the building belonging to such public trust or religious institution is exempt from the Act, then the purpose of the trust could be carried out much better. If that is the object with which the Government has granted exemption, then there is no reason to quash the exemption notifications issued under the Act. (1117-A-C] S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (1985) 1 SCC 290; Jayakaran v. Kera/a Health R & W Society, [1994] 1 KLT 24; State of Kera/av. Vijayan, [1978) KLT 342 and Lakshman v. Mohamood, [1992) 1 KLT 85 FB, relied on. D P.J. Irani v. State of Madras, (1962) 2 SCR 169 and Rohtas Industries E Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal & Anr., [1969) 3 SCR 108, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5628 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.99 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 13769of1998. WITH F C.A.Nos.5781,6375,6376,6378,6380,6381,6372,6374,6382,6373/2000 CJ and C.A. No. 4456 of2001. L. Nageshwara Rao, Joseph Kodianthars, M.P. Vinod, M.T. George, T.G.N. Nair, A. Raghunath, G. Prakash, Romy Chacko, K.M.K. Nair, Ms. Malini Poduval, Raj iv Mehta, Rauf Rahim and Rakesh K. Sharma for the appearing parties. H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,,,. B RAJENDRA BABU, J.: CA.Nos. 5628/2000, 578112000, 6375/2000, 6376/ 2000, 6378/ 2000, 6380/2000, 6381/2000, 6372/2000, 6374/2000 and C.A. No. 4456/2001 (arising out ofS.L.P. (C) No. 11259/2000) Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 11259/2000. Two notifications were issued under Section 25 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act')-one S.R.O. No. 435/ 92 issued on 7.3.92 published in the Kerala G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.