Bona fide denial of title and religious trust exemption limited rent-control jurisdiction, leaving title to civil court.

Property forming part of a religious trust or endowment could fall within the exemption notification for buildings owned by public religious and charitable trusts, so the Rent Control Act's applicability required proper examination and could not be rejected summarily. On the title dispute, the statutory enquiry under Section 10(2)(vii) was confined to whether the tenants' denial of title was bona fide; it did not permit final adjudication of ownership in rent proceedings. Because the tenants challenged the respondent's and his predecessor's title and the dispute was bona fide, the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to conclusively decide title, and the matter had to be left to the civil court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit property, being part of a religious trust/endowment, was exempt from the operation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; (ii) Whether the tenants' denial of the respondent's title raised a bona fide dispute so as to oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the suit property, being part of a religious trust/endowment, was exempt from the operation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Analysis: The trust deeds and the prior intra-partes decision had treated the property as forming part of a religious endowment or religious charity within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In that setting, the exemption notification issued under Section 29 of the Rent Control Act for buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts was materially relevant. The Rent Controller had not finally adjudicated this foundational question, and the High Court erred in treating the exemption claim as untenable notwithstanding the documentary and prior adjudicatory support available to the tenants.

Conclusion: The tenants had at least prima facie support for the claim that the Act did not apply to the suit property, and the contrary view taken by the High Court could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenants' denial of the respondent's title raised a bona fide dispute so as to oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits the Controller only to decide whether the denial of title is bona fide; it does not permit a final adjudication of disputed title. The tenants had challenged not merely the respondent's immediate title but also the title of his predecessor-in-interest, which they were entitled to do. The Rent Controller and the High Court went beyond the limited enquiry permitted under the Act by deciding title as if finally triable in rent proceedings. In addition, the respondent's attempt to support eviction by resort to the statutory definition of landlord, when the pleaded case was ownership through purchase, could not cure the jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The denial of title was bona fide, and the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to finally adjudicate the eviction petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent was left at liberty to seek a final adjudication of title before the competent civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Rent Control Act, the Controller may decide only whether the tenant's denial of title is bona fide; where a bona fide dispute as to derivative title exists, final determination of title lies with the civil court and cannot be conclusively made in rent proceedings.

---