K. Kumar vs Arulmighu Pidari ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8415 Mad

                                                                               S.A.No. 75 of 2012


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 21.04.2022

                                                      CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                                  S.A.No.75 of 2012

                     1. K. Kumar
                     2. K.Krishnakumar                             ....        Appellants

                                                         Vs

                     Arulmighu Pidari Uthanatchiamman
                     Mangaleswarar and Bala Vinayagar
                     Thirukoil, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.
                     represented by its Executive Officer
                     having office at Arulmighu
                     Ekambareswarar Thirukoil,
                     Amainthakarai, Chennai – 600 029.             ....        Respondent



                     PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside
                     the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2011 in A.S.No.233 of 2010 on
                     the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming
                     the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.7245 of 2008 dated 19.01.2010 on
                     the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.


                                     For Appellants   : Mr. S.Balaji

                                     For Respondent   : Mr. S.D.Ramalingam


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/5
                                                                                      S.A.No. 75 of 2012

                                                          JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration

to declare that the communication made by the defendant seeking for

enhancement of rent is void ab initio and for a permanent injunction

restraining the defendant from demanding the arrears of rent by virtue of

the enhancement of rent.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the tenant in the suit

property which belongs to the defendant. The plaintiffs became the

tenant in the year 1981 and the plaintiffs were also paying the rents that

were fixed from time to time by the defendant. While so, through

communication dated 19.08.2008, marked as Exs.A13 to A15, the

defendant increased the rent and sought for enhancement of rent.

According to the plaintiffs, the enhancement of rent is against the

provisions of Section 34-A of the Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act. Hence, the communication was put to challenge by

filing the suit before the Court below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 75 of 2012

4. Heard, Mr. S.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellants and

Mr. S.D.Ramalingam, learned counsel for the respondent. This Court

carefully went through the pleadings and also the findings rendered by

both the Courts below based on the evidence available on record.

5. Both the Courts below, after carefully understanding and

analysing the grievance of the plaintiffs, found that the suit itself is

barred and the plaintiffs had an effective Appellate remedy under Section

34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1959. Both the Courts concurrently found that the jurisdiction of

the Civil Court has been barred under Section 108 of the Act and if at all

the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the enhancement of rent, only an Appeal

should have been preferred before the concerned Authority and an

independent suit should not have been filed before the Civil Court. In

order to reach such a finding, both the Courts below have relied upon the

Reported Judgments on the issue.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the findings of both the

Courts below does not warrant the interference of this Court and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 75 of 2012

findings are based on the settled principles of law. No substantial

questions of law are involved in the second appeal.

7. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                        21.04.2022

                     Index          :Yes/No
                     Internet :Yes/No
                     Lpp


                     To

1.The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 75 of 2012

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

Lpp

S.A.No.75 of 2012

21.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis