J.Padmavathy vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 5444 Mad

                                                                           W.P.No.4964 of 2016

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 02.03.2021

                                              CORAM
                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                              W.P.No.4964 of 2016

                  J.Padmavathy                                           .. Petitioner

                                                      Vs.

                  1.The Commissioner
                    Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
                    Charitable Endowment Department
                    Uttamar Gandhi Salai
                    Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034

                  2.The Executive Officer
                    Arulmighu Pachaiammal Temple Devasthanam
                    and Boothaperumal Temple
                    Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002                        .. Respondents

                                                     ***
                  Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                  praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
                  execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in S. No.913, Door No.8,
                  Boothaperumal Naicken Street, Chennai - 600 002 to an extent of 748
                  sq.ft.
                                                     ***


                             For Petitioner      :    Mr.V.Jayaprakash

                             For R1              :    Mr.G.N.Jayantheeswar
                                                      Government Advocate

                             For R2              :    Mr.P.Wilson Topaz
                                                      for M/s.A.S.Kailasam Associates



http://www.judis.nic.in

                  Page 1/8
                                                                            W.P.No.4964 of 2016

                                                    ORDER

This writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing

the second respondent to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner

in respect of a land in S. No.913, Door No.8, Boothaperumal Naicken

Street, Chennai - 600 002 to an extent of 748 sq.ft.

2. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of the writ petition

are as follows:

The petitioner was a tenant under the second respondent temple

in respect of a property, which is the subject matter of the present writ

petition. The second respondent herein filed an Ejection Suit in E.S.

No.77 of 1983 before the 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai. Later the

petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City

Tenants Protection Act, for purchasing the tenanted portion. The

learned Judge of the 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai, has passed an

order on 08.10.1985, enabling the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.38,000/- in 25 installments at the rate of Rs.1,520/- per month to

the second respondent towards sale consideration. Stating that the

petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.46,280/- from 08.04.1986 to

04.10.1998, she approached the second respondent, to get a sale deed

in her favour, pursuant to the order she obtained under Section 9 of the

Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Since the respondent has not

yielded to the request of the petitioner and contended that, by virtue of http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 2/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

the amendment vide Act 2 of 1996, namely Madras City Tenants'

Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, the order of the Sub Court cannot

be implemented, the petitioner has approached this court with the

above prayer.

3. The short question that arises for consideration before this

court revolves around the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996

to the instant case.

4. It is not in dispute that, by virtue of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996,

the property belongs to the religious institutions are exempted from the

purview of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The validity of the

Act was upheld by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The question before this court is, whether the order passed by

the Small Causes Court under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants

Protection Act enabling the petitioner to purchase the property for a

price fixed in 1985, can be implemented or executed despite the

Amendment Act, which came into force with effect from 11.01.1996. In

other words, whether the exemption given to the religious institutions

by the amendment in 1996 disable the tenant to enforce the order

under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 3/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the consideration

for the sale was paid up to 04.10.1998 and the direction was to pay the

said amount in 25 monthly installments. So, it took the petitioner to

pay the money, even according to her, till October 1998. The

Amendment Act was introduced and came into effect from 11.01.1996.

The issue, whether the amendment has saved the religious institutions

from an order that was obtained before amendment, was considered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman

Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464, wherein, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.24 and 25 held as under:

"24. 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 by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land 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.

(b) On the order referred to in clause (a) being made, the suit or proceeding 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."

It is clear that if the tenant complies with the order http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 4/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

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 used in clause (a) i.e. "conveyance" to be made by the landlord to the 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 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 28.10.1996, however the amended Act 2/96 came into force on 11.01.1996 much earlier to the execution of sale deed. The view expressed in the Full Bench decision runs counter to the language used in the statute and we are unable to accept the same.

25. 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"/ "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, it would result in miscarriage of justice and it had been rightly rectified by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The benefit that has been bestowed upon the http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 5/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

religious institution by the Legislature cannot be ignored lightly merely because the issue was decided by way of review applications."

7. It is to be noted that, by virtue of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act

2 of 1996, every proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any

land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to

Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court

or other authority or 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 principal Act, as

amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate, and all rights and

privileges which may have accrued to that 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. It is to be noted further that the proviso to

Section 3 of Act 2 of 1996 states that nothing contained in the section

shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceedings in which a decree

or order passed by the court has been executed or satisfied in full

before the said date. Hence the proviso saves the tenant only if he gets

the sale deed executed before the amendment.

http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 6/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

8. In the present case, it is admitted that the tenant has filed a

petition for execution of a sale deed and the sale deed has not been

executed. Since the decree as such is not satisfied, it is not open to the

tenant now to pursue further after the amendment was introduced. I do

not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition for execution

of sale deed, cannot be entertained, after introduction of Tamil Nadu

Act 2 of 1996 to the existing provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants

Protection Act.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to cost.

                                                                        02.03.2021
                  Asr
                  Index        : Yes
                  To

                  1.The Commissioner
                    Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
                    Charitable Endowment Department
                    Uttamar Gandhi Salai
                    Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034

                  2.The Executive Officer

Arulmighu Pachaiammal Temple Devasthanam and Boothaperumal Temple Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002

http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 7/8 W.P.No.4964 of 2016

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

asr

W.P.No.4964 of 2016

02.03.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in

Page 8/8