Holding

The amendment Act applies to pending proceedings, the Mission is a religious institution, the High Court was justified in allowing review, and the decree and sale deed are nullities.

Summary

The Palani Roman Catholic Mission (landlord) leased a plot to S. Bhagirath Ammal (tenant) who erected a structure. After the lease expired, the Mission sought possession, and the tenant filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to purchase the land. While the application was pending, the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996) came into force, adding a proviso that proceedings by a tenant against land owned by a religious institution would abate. The High Court held that the Mission was a "religious institution" and that the amendment therefore nullified the tenant's decree and rendered the later execution of a sale deed on 28‑Oct‑1996 erroneous. The tenant appealed, challenging the High Court's review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The Supreme Court affirmed that the amendment applied to pending proceedings, the High Court was correct in allowing the review, and the decree and sale deed were void, dismissing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1996 applies to proceedings pending before its commencement.
Whether the Palani Roman Catholic Mission qualifies as a "religious institution" under the amendment.
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing review applications under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Whether the decree and subsequent sale deed executed after the amendment are void.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 47 Rule 1
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921s. 1(3) proviso (f), s. 9

Subjects

rent controlevictiontenants protection actreligious institutionamendment actreview petitionOrder 47abatementsale deednullity

Judgment

y'._
A S. BHAGIRATH AMMAL
v.
PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION

DECEMBER 6, 2007
B
[B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKARAND
P.SATHASIVAM,JJ.)

Rent Control and Eviction:
c
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921:
s. 1(3) proviso (j) (as inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 2of1996, and
s. 9-Purchase ofrented land by tenant-Exemption to land belonging
to 'religious institution '-Suit by land owner for recovery ofpossession
D ofland-Application under s. 9 by tenant for purchase ofland-During \.
pendency ofproceedings, Amendment Act 2of1996 coming into force-
Effect of-HELD: Land owner being a 'religious institution' within
the meaning ofs.1 (3) proviso(/), entitled to benefit ofthe amendment
Act-With coming intoforce ofamendment Act, proceedings instituted
E by tenant u/s 9 would abate~Decree passed thereafter in favour of
tenant became a nullity and executing court committed an error in
executing the sale deed-Abatement-Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908-
s.114-0r. 47, r.1-Review.
s. 9 rlw proviso (j) to s.1 (3)- "Conveyance" oftitle-Proceedings
F
u/s 9for purchase ofrented land by tenant pending- Meanwhile proviso
(j) to s.1 (3) inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 2of1996 coming into force-
HELD: Decree having not been executed by proper document
conveying title, proceedings u/s 9 are deemed to be pending and are
determined with coming into force of the Amendment Act - The view
G
to the contrary, as expressed in Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy
Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal, [2006] 2 MLJ 281 (FB) is
overruled.
Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908.'
H 1050
S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANlROMAN 1051
CATHOLIC MISSION
..,.r-._, Or. 47, r.1-Review-Held: Jfthe judgment/order is vitiated by an A
:ipparent error or it is pulpably wrong and the error is itselfevident,
review is permissible-On facts, High Court rightly applied the
principles.
Respondent-Mission, the owner of the suit land leased it out
B
to the appellant tenant for a specified period. The tenant raised
t
·~
structure thereon. After expiry of the lease period, the Mission filed
O.S. No.218of1969 for recovery of the land. However, both the
parties reached a compromise and the suit was accordingly disposed
of. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises the landlord filed a
fresh suit being O.S. No.76of1977 whereas the tenants filed O.P. c
No.4of1977 in the said suit for purchase the suit land in terms of
s.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. The trial court
decreed O.S. 76of1997 and dismissed O.P. No. 4of1977.

The tenant filed two appeals, one against the decree in O.S. D
,.., No.76 ofi977 and the other against the order in O.P. No.4 of1977.
The first appellate court, allowed both the appeals of the tenant. The
landlord filed a second appeal against the judgment setting aside the
decree passed in its favour and a revision petition against the order
allowing O.P. No.4of1977 of the tenant. The High Court dismissed E
both the appeal as also the revision petition. The SLP filed by the
landlord was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the meantime,
the tenant deposited the full site value and filed an execution petition
i.e. E.P. No.257of1985 for execution of the sale deed of the land/
property in question in her favour. On the other hand, the landlord
F
--i filed an execution petition being E.P.No. 79of1983 for executing
the compromise decree in O.S. No. 218 of1969. The executing coui1
allowed E.P. No.257of1985 filed by the tenant and dismissed EP
No. 79/83 filed by the landlord. The landlord filed a revision petition
being CRP. No.1445 of1988 againstthe order in E.P. No. 79 of1983
G
and an appeal being A.A.O. No. 767 of1989 against the order in E.P.
No.257of1985. Both the matters were dismissed by the High Court
by its order dated 26. 7.1997 upholding the directions of the executing
court to execute the sale deed in favour of the tenant. Consequently,
the sale deed in favour of the tenant was executed by the Court on
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 28.10.1996. The landlord unsuccessfully filed SLPs before the r ',
Supreme Court. Thereafter review applications being Review
Application Nos.8 and 9 of 1997 were filed by the landlord in the High
Court against its order dated 26.7.1997, but the same were dismissed.
The landlord challenged the order in S.L.Ps. before the Supreme
B Court, which passed an order of remand of Review Applications No.8
and 9 of1977. Meanwhile the Madras City Tenants Protection Act,
1921 was amended by the Madras City Tenants Protection
(Amendment) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of1996). Review Petitions No.8
and 9of1997 were allowed by the High Court. Consequently, the
C proceedings for return of the registered sale deed to the tenant were
dismissed by the executing court.
In the instant appeals filed by the tenant, it was reiterated on
behalf of the appellantthat the issue could not be agitated once again
by way ofreview application and, therefore, the judgment of the High
D Court should be set aside.
The only point for consideration in the instant appeals was as
to whether the High Court was justified in allowing Review
Application Nos.8 and 9of1997 under Order 47?. 1 of the Code of
E Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also called for a report from the
trial court, which gave a finding that the respondent Mission was a
religion institution within the meaning of s.1(3) proviso (t) of the
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 as amended by Tamil
Nadu Act 2 of1996.
F Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The provision of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it clear that an application for review
would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important
G piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face
of the record but also ifthe same is necessitated on account of same
mistake or for any other sufficient reason. If the error is so apparent
that without further investigation or enquiry only one conclusion can
be drawn in favour of the revisionist, in such circumstances, the
H review will lie. Thus, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent
S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMAN 1053
CATHOLIC MISSION
error or it is palpably wrong and if the error is self evident, review A
! -f is permissible. In the instant case, the High Court has rightly applied
the principles, as provided under Order 47Rule1 C.P.C. By virtue
oftbe order of this Court, the High Court was directed to decide the
review applications on merits. In such circumstances, the High Court
was fully justified in analyzing the issue as directed by this Court, B
}
and its ultimate decision that respondent-Mission is a "religious
i institution" cannot be faulted with.
[Paras 5, 10 and 12] (1059-C, D, E, F; 1064-C, D; 1067-D]
1.2. The High Court, on appreciation of acceptable oral and
documentary evidence, has rightly arrived at a factual conclusion c
that the respondent-Mission being a Roman Catholic Diocese, is a
"religious institution". In view of the categorical finding of the High
Court as well as the report of the trial court respondent-Mission is
a 'religious' institution within the meaning of s.(1)(3) proviso (f) of
the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 as amended by Tamil D
__.,. Nadu Act 2 of 1996. In such circumstances, as per sub-section (3)
of s.1, all proceedings initiated by a tenant would abate.
[Paras 6 and 10) [1059-A; 1060-A-B; 1061-C, D; 1065-B, CJ
2.1. In the instant case, on the date when the amendment Act E
came into force, the application under s.9 of the principal Act filed
by the tenant was still pending. The sale deed was executed only on
28.10.1996 whereas the amendment Act (Act No.2 of1996) had come
into force on 11.1.1996 much earlier to the execution of the sale deed.
/ As rightly concluded by the High Court, the decree in O.P. No.4 of
F
-~ 1977 became a nullity on and from 11.1.1996 and the executing court
committed an error in executing the sale deed after coming into force
of the Amendment Act. [Para 10] (1065-C, D, E)
2.2. Further, keeping in view the provisions of s. 9(1)(b) and
s.9(3)(b) and the expression "conveyance" occurring in clause (a) G
of s.9(3), as rightly observed by the High Court in the judgment under
appeal, unless the sale deed is executed either by the Mission or
by the Court, the fruits of the decree will not be realized by the tenant
and the proceedings will come to an end only upon execution of the
sale deed. The High Court, in the judgment under appeal, is right in H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l2007] 12 S.C.R.

A holding that the decree not having been executed by means of a sale
deed, the proceedings were deemed to be pending and, therefore, r
were determined with the coming into force of the amendment. The
view to the contrary, as expressed in Arulmigu Kasi
Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal* runs counter
B to the language used in the statute, and, as such, the same cannot
be accepted. [Para 10and11) [1065-E-G; 1066-E-H; 1067-A]

*Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam v.
Kasthuriammal, (2006) 2 MLJ 281 (FB), overruled.
C 2.3. By the Amendment Act, the Tamil Nadu legislature has
amended Section 1 of the principal Act w.e.f. 11.1.1996. Thus, from
11.1.1996, benefits conferred on the tenants under Section 9 of the
principal Act have been deleted in respect of lands belonging to
religious institutions or religious charity ofHindu, Muslim, Christian
D or other religions. The amended Act has given the respondent-
landlord a valuable right of exemption from the provisions of the
principal Act. The amendment Act has been upheld by a Full Bench
of the High Court* and the said decision has been approved by this
Court. [Paras 8 and 9) [1062-B; 1063-F; 1064-A)
E *N Sreedharan Nair v. State ofTamil Nadu, (2000) 3 M.L.J. 616
and Mylapore Club v. State of TN and Anr., (2005) 5 CTC 494,
referred to.

2.4. In the instant case, the review petitioner/respondent is a
F "religious institution" within the meaning of the amended provision
and entitled to the benefits of the amended Act. Further, ifthe same
is not applied to the respondent-Mission, it would result in
miscarriage of justice and it had been rightly rectified by the High
Court by the judgment under appeal. The benefit that has been
G bestowed upon the religious institution by the Legislature cannot be
ignored lightly merely because the issue was decided by way of
review applications. Inasmuch as at the relevant point of time, the
Amendment Act 2of1996 was not enacted and not available for
consideration before the Court and also the proceedings instituted
H by the tenant/appellant were pending and not reached finality on the
~

S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMAN 1055
CATHOLIC MISSION [P. SATHASIVAM,J.]
J date of coming into force of the amended Act, the High Court is A
justified in granting the relief as provided under the amendment Act
(Act No.2of1996) by allowing the review applications.
[Para 12] [1067-A, B, C, DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 78-79
B
of2002.
i
From the Judgment and final Order dated 20.7.2001 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Applications Nos. 8 & 9 of
1997.
M.N. Krishnamani, B. Sridhar, I. Madhavi and K. Ram Kumar for
c
the Appellant.
P.P. Rao, V.J. Francis, Anupam Mishra, Jessy Kurien, D.S. Chadha,
Purushottam, T.S. Abhishek Gupta and Sahar Bakht for the Respondents.
D
-I The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. ( 1) Challenging the Order dated 20. 7.2001
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Application
Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein whereby a learned
single Judge of the High Court allowed the same, the appellant has filed E
these appeals.
(2) The respondent herein was the owner of the suit vacant land in
question. In 1959, the suit land was leased out for five years by the
respondent to the appellant herein. On 3.3.1965, the tenancy was renewed
--~ for another period of three years. After the expiry of three years, the F
respondent wanted the appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant
did not vacate, the respondent issued a notice on 28. 8.1968 demanding
possession for which he sent a reply with false and frivolous allegations.
In the year 1969, the respondent filed O.S. No. 75of1970 as a counter
blast for getting a fresh lease document from the respondent. On G
14.12.1970, O.S. No. 218of1969 was compromised and O.S. No.
75 of 1970 was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant did not vacate
the suit property in spite of repeated demands by the respondent, therefore,
the respondent filed a fresh Suit i.e. O.S. No. 76of1977 for delivery of
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A possession. On 27.7.1978, O.S. No. 76of1977 was decreed in favour
of the respondent while O.P. No. 4of1977 filed by the appellant for
purchase of the land by her was erroneously dismissed and an order of
eviction was passed against the appellant by the Court of District Munsif,
Palani. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gives the option
B of purchasing the site from the landlord by the tenant in case a suit for
eviction is filed by the landlord where the tenant is the owner of the
superstructure standing there on and if the tenant is not interested in buying
the site then the landlord can buy the superstructure or ask the tenant to
remove the superstructure and seek delivery of possession. The said Act
c was extended to the town of Palani in Tamil Nadu only in 1975, therefore, ·
the available to the appellant as the owner of the superstructure. The
appellant filed an application O.P. No. 4of1977 in Suit No. 76of1977
for purchase ofland by him which was dismissed. Against the said order,
the appellant filed A.S. No. 121 of 1978 and another A.A.0. No. 94 of
0 1978 against the order in O.P. No. 4 of 1977. The appellate Court
allowed the appeals of the appellant directing the respondent to sell the
land to the appellant for an amount of Rs. 65,092.50. Aggrieved by the
said order, the respondent filed S.A. No. 2149of1981 and C.R.P. No.
2204 of 1980 against the order allowing the petition of the appellant for
E purchase of the suit property. The second appeal and the revision petition
filed by the respondent were dismissed by a learned single Judge of the
High Court of Madras. Against that order, the respondent filed S.L.P. (c)
Nos. 5029 of 5030 of 1984 before this Court which were dismissed.
After the stay order operating from 1980 to 1985 continuously ceased
F to operate, the appellant deposited the full site value. With the dismissal
of the S.L.Ps by this Court and the deposit of the full site value by the ~ ·
appellant, the same became final. In the year 1985, the appellant filed an
execution petition being E.P. No. 257of1985 for execution of the sale
deed of the land in his favour by the respondent. On the other hand, the
respondent filed an execution petition being E.P. No. 79 of 1983 for
G executing the compromise decree in O.S. No. 218 of 1969. Both the
petitions were taken up together for disposal. The Executing Court allowed
E.P. No. 257of1985 filed by the appellant for execution of the sale deed
and dismissed E.P. No. 79of1983 filed by the respondent. Dissatisfied
therewith, the respondent filed C.R.P. No. 1445of1988 against the order
H
S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMAN 1057
CATHOLIC MISSION [P. SATHASIV AM, J.]
in E.P. No. 79of1983 and A.A.O. No. 767of1989 against the order A
in E.P. No. 257of1985. Both the petitions were heard together and the
same were dismissed by the High Court upholding the directions of the
Execution Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On
28.10.1996, the sale deed in favour of the appellant was executed by
the Court of District Munsif, Palani. The sale deed was registered as B
Document No. 1908 of 1996 in the Registrar's office. Against the order
in C.R.P. No. 1445 of 1988 and A.A. 0. No. 767 of 1989, the
respondent filed S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22925 and 22926of1996 before this
Court which were dismissed. After every thing became final with the
execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellant and c
the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court, the respondent filed review
applications being Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 in the High
Court against the order dated 26.7.1997 passed by the High Court on
the same grounds that they were not maintainable after the dismissal of
the S.L.Ps by this Court, On 7.2.1997, the appellant filed an application D
E.A. No. 820 of 1996 for return of the duly registered sale deed and the
same was allowed. The respondent was not a party to the said E.A. and
he did not make any effort to implead Jiimse1£ Against the said order, the
Registrar who was a party filed C.R.P. No. 1819 of 1997. In the said
C.R.P., the respondent filed an application being C.M.P. No. 3005 of E
1998 to implead himself which was dismissed by the High Court. The
C.R.P. filed by the Registrar was dismissed by the High Court. The C.R.P.
filed by the Registrar was dismissed and the Registrar returned the sale
deed to the executing Court. Against the order dated 16.12.1998 in the
R.A. Nos. 8 & 9of1997, the respondent filed S.L.P.(c) Nos. 6097 & F
6098of1999 before this Court. On 2.2.2001, this Court passed an order
ofremand of the review applications in S.L.P.(c) Nos. 6097-6098 of
1999 because of the decision of this Court in Kunhyammedv. State of
Kera/a, [2000] 6 SCC 359, holding that the summary dismissal of a
special leave petition does not bar a review petition permissible under the
law. The respondent field an aplication in the review applications for G
producing additional documents which was allowed by a learned single
Judge of ~he High Court. As a result of the order of the High Court, the
proceedings for return of the registered sale deed to the appellant was
dismissed by the executing Court. Aggrieved by the said order, these
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 12 S.C.R.

A appeals have been preferred by the appellant. r- -
(3) Heard Mr. M.N. Krishnarnani, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent.
B (4) The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether the
High Court is justified in allowing. Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of ~
1997 under Order XL VII Rule l C.P.C.
(5) Since we have already narrated the case of both the parties in
C the paragraphs supra, there is no need to traverse the same once again.
Before considering the rival claims made by both the parties, it is useful
to refer the provisions under Order XLVII Rule l C.P.C. relating to
Review which read as under:
"l. Application for review of Judgment :- (1) Any person
D considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from
which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
E
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when
F the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some ~ .

mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed
or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to
the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
G
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply
for a review ofjudgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal
by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent,_ he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which
H
S. BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC 1059
MISSION [P. SATHASIV AM, J.]
';' --4 he applies for the review. A
'
[Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any
other case, shal not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
B
I
~ A reading of the above provision makes it clear that Review is permissible
(a) from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced by the party at
the time when the decree was passed; (b) on account of some mistake;
(c) where error is apparent on the face of the record or is a palpable c
wrong; (d) any other sufficient reason. If any of the conditions satisfy, the
party may apply for a review of the judgment or order of the Court which
passed the decree or order. The provision of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 make it clear that an application for review
would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important D
piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of
the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake
or for ant other sufficient reason. An error contemplated under the Rule
must be such which is apparent on the fact of the record and not an error
which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an E
error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and
it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When
does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on
the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court,
If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry,
---i F
only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such
circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties
are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided
just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by
reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned
G
judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests
formulated above.
(6) It is the claim of the respondent herein that it is a Roman Catholic
Mission and is a religious institution within the meaning of Amended
provisions of The Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act). The "Roman Catholic
Mission" (hereinafter "Mission" in short), in support of the above claim,
filed several documents, namely, Ex. A-1 to A-15 and also let in evidence
of PW-I an PW-2 who were conversant with their activities. The High
Court, on appreciation of those materials, arrived at a factual conclusion
B that the same came under the Roman Catholic Diocese which has as its
object and maintenance of churches and hence it is a "religious institution".
Though it was contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant herein that only certificate of registration was produced by the
Mission to substantive its case that it is a religious institution. in view of
c the categorical factual finding by the High Court based on acceptable oral
and documentary evidence, we reject the said objection. It is relevant to
point out that when the above appeals were heard on 19.01.2006 at
length, this Court after finding that it would be just and expedient to call
for a finding from the trial Court as to whether the Palani Roman Catholic
D Mission is a 'religious institution' or 'institution ofreligious charity'
belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion within the meaning
of Section l(f) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, as
amended by Act 2 of 1996, directed the trial Court ot record a finding
on the said question after giving opportunity of adducing oral and
E documentary evidence to the parties and thereupon remit its finding to
this Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction, this Court received a
report dated 09.08.1996 from the trial CoUit i.e. District Munsiff, Palani
and the same was handed over to learned counsel appearing on behalf
F of the parties. They were given an opportunity to peruse the report and
submit their objection, if any. The report shows that the learned District
Munsiff, after affording opportunity to both parties and after recording
evidence and relying on documents placed by both parties, arrived at the
following conclusion:-
G "........ Thus, on cumulative appraisal of the evidence on record
in the context of the undisputed averments of the proof-affidavit
of the P.W. l and P.W.2 in particularly P.W.2 with regard to the
factum of conducting the religious ceremonies, prayers and masses
in the plaintiff-Mission, this Court feels that an inescapable and
H irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the plaintiff-mission is a
S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMANCATHOLIC 1061
MISSION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
_y I place of worship for the people who have faith in the Christianity A
in particularly believers attached with the Roman Catholic
denomination. Therefore, in view of the finding as above, this Court

-, hold that the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a religious institution
in the context of the sec. (l)(t) of the Madras City Tenants
Protection Act, 1921-as amended by Act 2 of 1996. B
1 In the result, on the basis of the evidence emerged on record,
I hold that the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a religious
institution within the meaning of sec. (1) (f) of the Madras City
Tenants Protection Act, 1921 as amended by the Act 2of1996."
c
In view of the conclusion of the High Court as well as the report of
the trial Court holding that Palani Roman Catholic Mission-respondent
herein is a religious institution within the meaning of Section (1) (f) of the
principal Act as amended by Madras City Tenants Protection act as
amended by Act 2 of 1996. We agree with the said conclusion. D
(7) Now we will consider the provisions of the Principal Act as well
the provisions of the Amendment Act i.e., the Madras City Tenants'
Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996)
[hereinafter referred to as "the amended Act"]. The Statement of Objl<~ts
and Reasons of the Act shows that in many parts of the City of Madras E
(and other Municipal towns) dwelling houses and other buildings have from
time to time been erected by tenants on lands belonging to others, in the
expectation that subject to payment of a fair ground rent they would be
left in their undisturbed possession, in spite of any agreement about duration
--~ of the tenancy and the terms on which the buildings were to be leased. F
Attempts made or steps taken to evict a large number of such tenants
had shown that such expectations are likely to be defeated. The tenants,
if they were evicted, can remove the superstructure which can only be
done by pulling down the building, or claim compensation for the value
of the building put up by them and the value of any tree planted by them, G
j
As a result of such wholesale destruction, congested parts of the city
(municipal towns) would become more congested to the serious detriment
of public health. In the circumstances, it was though just and reasonable
that the landlords when they evict the tenants should pay for and take the
buildings. There may however be cases where the landlord is unwilling to H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A eject a tenant, ifhe can get a fair rent for the land. The Act provides for
the payment of compensation to the tenant in case of ejectment for value
of any buildings which may have been erected by him, or his predecessor-
in-interest. It also provides for the settlement of fair rent at the instance
of the landlord, or tenant. Provision is also made to enable the tenant to
B purchase the land in his occupation, subject to certain conditions.
(8) Section 9 gives the right to the tenant, who has put up a
superstructure to purchase such part or extent of the land, be reasonably
required for his enjoyment. Since we are concerned about the Amended
Act, there is no need to go into other provisions. The Amended Act
C received the assent of the President on 5.1.1996 and published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part IV Section 2 dated
11.1.1996. By Amendment Act, the Tamil Nadu legislature has amended
Section 1 of the principal Act and added certain provisions in sub-section
(3). The amended provisions are as follows:
D
"Amendment of Section 1- In Section I of the Madras City
Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922),
(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in sub-section (3), in
the first proviso; after clause (e), the following clause shall be added,
E namely:-
(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu,
Muslim, Christian or other religion.
Explanation :- for the purpose of this Clause"-
F (A) "religious institution" means any- ~ .
(i) temple
(ii) math;
(iii) mosque
G
(iv) church; or
(v) other place by whatever name known
which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right
by, any community or section thereof as a place of public
H
S. BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMANCATHOLIC 1063
MISSION [P. SATHASIVAM,J.]
, I
~ religious worship; A
(B) "religious charity" means a public charity associated with a
religious festival or observance of religious character (including
a wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of
religious character), whether it be connected with any religious
institution or not." B
3. Certain pending proceedings to abate - Every proceeding
instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any
religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other
religion and pending before ant Court or other authority or C
officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette, shall in so far as the proceeding
relates to any matter falling within the scope of the principle
Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate
and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that D
tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately
before the said date shall in so far as such rights and privileges
relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act,
as amended by this Act, cease and determine and shall not
be enforceable:
E
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed
to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order
passed had been executed or satisfied in full before the said
date."
- ~ We have already mentioned that the amendment was published in the F
Gazettee on 11.1.1996 and as per sub-section (2) of Section l, it came
into force on the date of publication. In other words, from 11.1.1996
benefits conferred on the tenants under Section 9 of the Principal Act have
been deleted in respect of the lands belonging to religious institution or
religious charity of Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion. We have G
already refen-ed to the finding of the High Court holding that the
respondent herein is a Roman Catholic Mission which is a "religious
institution" within the meaning of the amended provision. The Amended
Act has given the respondent herein a valuable right of exemption from
the provisions of the Principal Act. H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A (9) It is re\evant to mention here that the Amendment Act No. 2 of r '
1996 has been upheld by the Full Bench of the High Court in N
Sreedharan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 3 M.L.J. 616 and
the said decision of the Full Bench has also been approved by this Court
by dismissing C.A. Nos. 4531 of2003 etc.etc. titled Mylapore Club v.
B State of TN. Anr., (2005) 5 CIC 494, filed against the same.
"-
(10) Both before the High Court as well as before this Court, it was f

contended that in view of the orders/decisions of various Courts including
this Court, the issue cannot be agitated once again by way of review
application; hence, the impugned Order of the High Court is to be set
c aside. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,
has brought to our notice that in the earlier proceedings, this Court in
Civil Appeal Nos. 1055-1056 of 2001 directed the High Court to
consider the review applications afresh. In other words, by the virtue of
the said order of the High Court was directed to decide, the review
D applications on merits. In such circumstances the High Court was fully
justified in analyzing the issue as directed by this Court and its ultimate
decision that Roman Catholic Mission is a "religious institution" cannot
be faulted with since it relied on acceptable materials in the fonn of oral
and documentary evidence (vide Ex. A-1 to A-15 and evidence of PW-
E 1, PW-2). It was demonstrated that these religious and charitable
institutions were not only deprived of their legitimate income but also their
valuable properties. It was also their claim that because of the provision,
namely, Section 9 of the Act, the tenants flourished and the landlord-
institutions were crippled. It was further pointed out that in those
F circumstances Act No. 2 of 1996 was enacted in order to protect those t •
religious institutions. We have already concluded that pleadings of the
respondent herein-review pt.titioners and various orders/judgments show
that it is a "religious institution". As rightly observed by the High Court,
the claim that the "Mission" is a "religious institution" is apparent from
G the materials without any further investigation. In such circumstances, as
per Section 1 (t) of the amended Act, all proceedings instituted by a tenant
would abate. The amended Act came into force from 11.1.1996 and on
the question whether on the date of coming into force of the amended
Act, giving certain benefits to the religious institutions and taking away
H the right of the tenant under Section 9, the High Court concluded as under:
S. BHAGIRATH AMMAL v. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC 1065
MISSION [P. SATHASIVAM,J.]
, "...The Transfer C.M.A. which was a continuation of the application A
119'
-i
under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act
filed by the respondent who is the tenant was still pending. The
proceedings had not attained finality. Therefore, they tenninated
and they became unenforceable. On the date when the first appeal
and the C.M.A. were disposed of, tenancy granted by religious B
; _) institutions were still governed by the provisions of the Act. Now,
by the introduction of Act 2 of 1996, they cease to apply, ergo,
all proceedings instituted by the tenant shall abate. All rights and
privileges that may have accrued to her cease. They come to an
end and they shall not be enforceable. The jurisdiction of the Court c
to decide the tenants claim ceased."
It is clear that on the dated when the amended Act came into force, the
application under Section 9 of the principal Act filed by the tenant-
appellant herein was still pending. Though Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that all fonnalities D
were completed before coming into force of the amended Act, as pointed
out earlier, pursuant to the order of the High Court, the sale deed was
executed only on 28.10.1996 whereas the amended Act No. 2 of 1996)
came into force on 11.1.1996 much earlier to the execution of the sale
deed, hence, the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant is E
not acceptable and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at
by the High Court. As rightly concluded by the High Court, the decree in
O.P. No. 4of1977 became a nullity on and from 11.1.1996, the executing
Court committed an error in executing the sale deed after coming into
- ..j force of amended Act. Further as rightly observed by the High Court, F
unless the sale deed is executed either by the Mission or by the Court,
the fruits of the decree will not be realized by the tenants and the
proceedings will come to an end only upon execution of the sale deed.
Therefore, the tenant cannot be heard to say that the provisio applies to
him and that the proceedings are not invalidated. The High Court is right G
in holding that the decree not having been executed by means of a sale
I deed, the proceedings are deemed to be pending and, therefore, were
detennined with the coming into force of the amendment Act.
(11) Finally, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP(NPD) 2758
of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam v.
Kasthuriammal, submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount
the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said
decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall
B be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood
dismissed as per Section 9(3) (b) of the Act. We are unable to accept
the said proposition. The relevant provisions are as follows:-
''9. (3) (a) On payment of the price fixed under clause (b) of sub-
section ( 1) the Court shall pass an order directing the conveyance
c by the landlord to the tenant of the extent ofland for which the
said price was fixed. The Court shall by the same order direct the
tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent
of the land, if any, the stamp duty and registration fee in respect of
such conveyance shall be borne by the tenant.
D
(b) on the Order referred to in clause (a) being made, the suit or
proceedings shall stand dismissed, and any decree or order in
ejectment that may have been passed therein but which has not
been executed shall be vacated."
E It is clear that.if the tenant complies with the order passed under Section
9 (1) (b) and deposits the amount within the time as fixed, the Court has
to pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant.
It is true that as per Section 9 (3) (b) on passing an order under clause
(a) the suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed. In the light of the language
F used in clause (a) i.e. "Conveyance" to be made by the landlord to the r.
tenant, till the proper document conveying title to the tenant it is presumed
that the proceeding is kept pending. To put it clear that unless the sale
deed is executed by the landlord in favour of the tenant or in the alternative
by the Court on behalf of the landlord the fruits of the decree can not be
G realized. The suit or proceeding will come to an end immediately on
execution of sale deed either by the landlord or by the Court on behalf
of the landlord. In our case, as said earlier, the sale deed was executed
only on 28. l 0.1996, however the amended Act 2/96 came into force on
11.01.1996 much earlier to the execution of sale deed. The view expressed
H in the Full Bench decision runs counter to the language used in the statute
S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANIROMANCATHOLIC 1067
MISSION [P. SATHASIV AM,J.]
j --+ and we are unable to accept the same. A
(12) From the materials, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached
by the High Court holding that the review petitioner/respondent herein is
a "religious Mission"t'Institution" within the meaning of amended provision
and entitled to the benefits of amended Act. Further if the same is not
applied to the Mission, if would result in miscarriage of justice and it had B
·' -"' been rightly rectified by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The
benefit that has been bestowed upon the religious institution by the
Legislature cannot be ignored lightly merely because the issue was decided
by way of review applications. Inasmuch as at the relevant point of time,
the Amended Act 2 of 1996 was not enacted and not available for c
consideration before the Court and also of the fact that the proceeding
instituted by the tenant/appellant herein was pending and not reached
finality on the date of coming into force of the amended Act, we are
satisfied that the High Court is justified in granting the relief as provided
~-".
under the amended Act (Act No. 2of1996) by allowing the review D
applications. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an
apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self evident,
review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly applied
the said principles as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. In view of
the same, we are unable to accept the arguments of learned senior counsel E
appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement
·with the view expressed by the High Court.
(13) In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, the appeals
fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-~ --1 F
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.

}