S.Selvam vs Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple
2023 Latest Caselaw 10969 Mad

                                                                                      CRP No.2209 of 2023

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED: 22.08.2023

                                                             CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                            Civil Revision Petition No.2209 of 2023
                                                   & C.M.P.No.13345 of 2023

                     1. S.Selvam
                     2. S.Domomic Xavier
                     3. S.Samikannu                                          ...   Petitioners

                                                                Vs.

                     Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple
                     rep. By its Managing Trustee,
                     C.R.Dharmalingam,
                     D.No.177, New Bangalow,
                     Suramangalam main road,
                     Thiruvagoundanoor Bye-pass,
                     Salem – 636 005                                         ... Respondent


                                  Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1) of the Tamilnadu

                     Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960 to set aside the order

                     and decreetal order dated 29.08.2022 made in R.C.A.No.3 of 2018 on the

                     file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem (Appellate Rent

                     Controller) Salem confirming the order and decreetal order dated

                     29.06.2018 made in R.C.O.P.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the Rent

                     Controller / II Additional District Munsif, Salem and allow the present CRP

                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.V.R.Anna Gandhi

                                        For Respondents : Mr.V.Sekar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


                     1/8
                                                                                    CRP No.2209 of 2023



                                                              ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the

order and decreetal order dated 29.08.2022 made in R.C.A.No.03 of 2018

on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem (Appellate Rent

Controller) Salem confirming the order and decreetal order dated

29.06.2018 made in R.C.O.P.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the Rent

Controller / II Additional District Munsif, Salem.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

The respondent preferred R.C.O.P. No.43 of 2007 to evict the

petitioners from the petition mentioned properties for their willful default in

payment of rent to the respondent with costs. Upon considering the

pleading, counter pleadings, exhibits, documents and on examining the

witnesses, the trial court, allowed the said petition, thereby ordered eviction

and to pay the cost of the suit on 29.06.2018. Aggrieved by the said order,

the petitioners have preferred RCA No.3 of 2018. The appellate court by

an order dated 29.08.2022 confirmed the order passed in RCOP No.43 of

2007, thereby ordered the petitioners to vacate the petition mentioned

property within two months. As against the same, the petitioners have

come forward with the present Revision.

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

CRP No.2209 of 2023

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the court

below has failed to look into the aspect that the respondent / landlord

miserably failed to prove that the building was leased out to the petitioners'

father and that there is no locus standi of signatory by the landlord to

maintain eviction petition against the petitioners in the capacity of

managing trustee.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the suit

property belongs to temple and the reliance placed by the trial court on

the Judgment reported in 2009 (2) CTC page 25 relates to trust property,

therefore, the said judgment as no application to the facts of the case,

thereby pleaded to allow the present Revision.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that he is the managing trustee of Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy temple

and its properties situated in T.S.No.2 in Pallapatti Town of Salem District

and the petitioners are the sons of one Sowrinathan, who entered into

agreement for rent with the respondent's elder brother namely,

C.Ramalingam on 23.06.1986 and as such, the said Sowrinathan executed

a lease document, but he did not pay rent regularly except few months and

after his death, the petitioners being sons of said Sowrinathan continuing

as tenants and the monthly rent of the building is Rs.10,000/- and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.2209 of 2023

petitioners did not pay any rent for merely five years and thus committed

willful default for which, the respondent have come forward with the RCOP

petition for the eviction on the ground of willful default. The trial court has

rightly ordered eviction and the appellate court has upheld the same, which

does not warrant any intereference, thereby pleaded to dismiss the

Revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents placed on record.

7. It is alleged by respondent that originally the suit temple was

contructed by the respondent's great grand father and was maintained

subsequently by respondent's grand father, viz., Varadarajulu chettiar and

the said Varadarajulu Chettiar had three wives namely, Ammathayammal,

Chinnammal and Pathriyammal and the said Varadharajulu executed

registered Will in favour of his three wives and their daughters and by

executing the Will, he had appointed Ammathayammal and one

Govindasamy chettiar as the trustees to manage the affairs of the Arulmigu

Anjaneyaswamy temple which is nothing but the subject mentioned

property and the said Ammathayammal had executed a registered Will in

favour of the respondent's mother namely, Rajammal and respondent's

elder brother, C.D.Ramalingam by appointing them as managing trustees https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.2209 of 2023

of the Anjaneyawamy temple and based on that Will and subsequent family

arrangement between the parties, this respondent was appointed as

managing trustee on 11.06.2003 by the family members, hence the

respondent is the managing trustee of the suit temple.

8. On a perusal of the additional counters dated 06.01.2011 and

21.12.2016 filed by the petitioners before the court below it reveals that the

petitioners had admitted that the petition mentioned property has been

given to Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple, leigh Bazaar, Salem by the

family members of late Ammathayammal, as per the registered Trust deed

and hence it is a trust property. Thus, by filing additional counters, the

petitioners had accepted that the petition mentioned property belongs to

Ammathayammal, who is the ancestor of the respondent. Further, the

landlord and tenant relationship between the parties is also admitted by the

petitioners in the additional counter dated 06.01.2011.

9. It is pertinent to point out that to substantiate the claim, the

respondent has filed the Will executed by Varadarajulu Chettiar as Ex.P.1,

which shows that Anjaneyaswamy Temple was created by his father and

maintained by him and the Will, which is marked as Ex.P.4 is executed by

the said Ammathayammal, who is none other than the wife of Varadarajulu

Chettiar, by giving powers to Rajammal, who is said to be daughter of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.2209 of 2023

Varadharajulu Chettiar and her son C.D.Ramalingam and the said

C.D.Ramalingam is the brother of the respondent. Hence from the

documents filed by the respondent and additional counters filed by the

petitioners, it is clear that the petition mentioned property belongs to the

respondent and previously to his ancestors and it is admitted by the

petitioners also, though initially they have denied the same.

10.In the present case on hand, it is clear as per Ex.P.6, Trust deed

that a trust has been created only between the family members of the

Ammathayammal to maintain the temple as per the Will and from the

income of family properties. Further, Ex.P.6, Trust deed clearly shows that

it is a private trust created between family members in respect of

maintenance of temple and hence it will not be deemed as public trust.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out

any grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court as well

as the Appellate court. Further, there is a willful default by the petitioners in

paying rent from the year 2007.

11. In the result, the present Revision is dismissed and the

petitioners are directed to vacate the subject mentioned premises on or

before 30.11.2023, failing which, the respondent is at liberty to proceed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.2209 of 2023

against the petitioners in accordance with law. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

22.08.2023

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order ssd

To

1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,

Salem (Appellate Rent Controller)

2. The Rent Controller / II Additional District Munsif,

Salem

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

CRP No.2209 of 2023

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.

ssd

Civil Revision Petition No.2209 of 2023 & C.M.P.No.13345 of 2023

22.08.2023

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