Madras High Court
A.Mumthaj vs The Commissioner on 14 July, 2021
W.A.No.799 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.799 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.4345 of 2021
1.A.Mumthaj
2.Minor Sarbunnisa
3.Minor Mohammed Azik
(Minor appellants 2 and 3 are
represented by their next friend
and natural guardian the 1st appellant herein)
4.Ozer Beevi (Died) .. Appellants
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
No.1,West Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
3.Chairman of the Trustees,
Arulmigu Sithanathaswamy Thirukoil,
Ramasamy Asari Lane,
South Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 7
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 11.11.2020 made in W.P.No.7877 of 2011.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Elizabeth Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh
Government Counsel
for R1 and R2
Mr.V.Srikanth for R3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2020
made in W.P.No.7877 of 2011.
2. The appellants herein, claiming to be the tenants of the
respondent/temple, filed writ petition challenging the impugned order
dated 23.11.2010 invoking Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The aforesaid impugned
order was passed on the revision petition filed by the appellants
against the common order passed by the second respondent in
exercise of power conferred under Section 78(4) of the HR&CE Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
3. After hearing the appellants, the second respondent while
giving a finding that the lease granted expired long time back and the
rent having not been paid, the appellants are declared as encroachers
and thus directed them to hand over the possession. Challenging the
aforesaid common order passed, revision petition has been filed by the
appellants in R.P.No. 54 of 2008. Taking note of the fact that there was
no material to hold that the properties were actually let out by the
trustee contrary to the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, without
obtaining appropriate permission coupled with the lack of renewal, the
finding rendered by the second respondent that they are the
encroachers was confirmed by the revisional authority. It has also been
recorded that the report of the Assistant Commissioner was taken into
consideration and there is no basis for continuing the appellants any
longer.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia,
holding that the very lease granted by itself do not conform to the
provisions of the Act, no right is created in favour of the appellants.
Reliance has been made on Section 77 of the Act. That position being
admitted and the occupation of premises by the appellants being
within the temple precincts, the learned Single Judge found that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
reasoning of respondents 1 and 2 is perfectly in order. Aggrieved over
the dismissal of the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. It
has been submitted that the appellants being in possession for quite
number of years, they should be treated as tenants even otherwise.
6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. We are dealing with the case where the
factual findings have been rendered by the second respondent as
confirmed by the first respondent. Learned Single Judge found that the
very permission granted in the name of so-called lease being contrary
to the enactment by the erstwhile trustee, no right is created. We also
find that even the so-called lease has expired and there is also arrears
of rent. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the order passed.
7. We do not know as to how the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act would apply to the case on hand. Thus, we are not in a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
position to uphold the submissions made as against the findings
rendered by respondents 2 and 1, leading to the orders of eviction.
8. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that taking into consideration the long possession, sufficient
time may be granted, we are not inclined to accede to the said request
in view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent that the possession has been taken
pursuant to the order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge
on 26.02.2021, which factum is not denied or disputed.
9. In such view of the matter, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
14.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
1.The Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
No.1,West Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
3.Chairman of the Trustees,
Arulmigu Sithanathaswamy Thirukoil,
Ramasamy Asari Lane,
South Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.799 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.799 of 2021
14.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
