Madras High Court
S.Pathikarasi (Died) vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1,2,5 & 6 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
1.S.Pathikarasi (died)
2.M.Velayutham
3.G.Jayanthi
4.S.Vasanthi
5.S.Gomathi
6.K.S.Hemalatha
7.D.Janarthani .. Petitioners
(Petitioners 3 to 7 brought on record
as legal heirs of the deceased 1st
petitioner viz., S.Pathikarasi,vide
Court order dated 21.07.2023 made in
C.M.P.No.10896 of 2023)
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Chennai-600 034.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
2.The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil
Kancheepuram.
3.T.Damodaran
4.D.Kesavan
5.M.Suersh .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 34-A(5) of the
HR and CE Act, against the order dated 12.02.2013 made in A.P.No.50 of
2012 by the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 15.07.2011 of the
2nd respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thangavel
For R1 : Mr.Edwin Prabakar, Spl.G.P.
Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi, AGP (CS)
For R2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
and Mr.R.Bharanidharan
For R3 to R5 : Mr.J.Lakshminarayanan
ORDER
The revision challenges an order passed by the Commissioner, HR
and CE Department, in A.P.No.50 of 2012, dated 12.02.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
2. The 1st petitioner before this Court is the tenant. The tenant is in
occupation of 2941 sq.ft. The original tenant was one Vaithiyalinga
Nadar. From him, the property came to S.Pathikarasi, the 1st petitioner.
The rent that was being paid for 2941 sq.ft. was Rs.5/- per month. It is an
admitted case that the 1st petitioner had sublet the property to the third
parties and they are in occupation of the same. As against those tenants,
the fair rent that was fixed was Rs.6,240/- per month for 300 sq.ft. The
Executive Officer had taken into consideration the fair rent fixed for the
building and had fixed the value at Rs.28,992/- per month.
3. According to Mr.S.Thangavel, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Executive Officer ought not to have taken into
consideration the value fixed in the rent control proceedings and he
ought to have independently taken into consideration the value that is
fixed by the Statutory Committee under Section 34-A(1) of the HR and
CE Act. According to him, the Executive Officer should have referred
only to that proceeding and fixed the value. He would bring to my notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
that there is a procedural violation of G.O.Ms.No.353 and a circular
issued by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, dated 02.02.2009.
According to him, the Statutory Committee should have issued a notice
to him, received his reply and thereafter, fixed the value.
4. Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
would point out that the fixation of fair rent was only based on the
admitted fair rent fixed in R.C.O.P.No.453 of 2007 on the file of the
Small Causes Court, Chennai and therefore, there is no violation by the
order of fixing fair rent by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer
has only fixed the fair rent at Rs.16.60 per sq.ft. He would further point
out that the property is situated in the heart of the City of Chennai and
the market value goes beyond the value fixed by the Executive Officer.
He would also point out that from the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in
Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple,
Adimanaiveal House Owners Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
represented by its Secretary to the Government, HR and CE
Department, Chennai, (2009) 4 MLJ 1223, the value fixed by the
Statutory Committee in terms of the circular issued by the Commissioner,
HR and CE Department, dated 02.02.2009 is only recommendatory and
not final. He would also draw my attention to “explanation” appended to
Section 34-A(1) of the HR and CE Act, to press home the point that the
Executive Officer can determine the market value on the basis of a
similar type of property situated in the locality.
5. It is pertinent to note that the Executive Officer has fixed the fair
rent only for 1736 sq.ft. The original extent which had been leased out to
the 1st petitioner is 2941 sq.ft. The discrepancy in the area is, because the
1st petitioner before me had sublet the property to two persons and they
had directly approached the temple for attornment of lease in their
favour. The two tenants are Damodaran and Kesavan. When the temple
had leased out the premises to the extent of 2941 sq.ft., the concession
extended by the Executive Officer to the revision petitioners for 1736
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
sq.ft. is bewildering. He ought to have fixed the fair rent for the entire
extent of 2941 sq.ft. This is so because a sub tenant of a building under a
tenant will not become a direct tenant of the temple with respect to the
land.
6. In fact, following the said principle, in so far as the revision
filed under the Rent Control Act is concerned, I held the principal tenant
is the landlord for the subtenant and have dismissed the connected
revision in C.R.P.No.1652 of 2014. Therefore, the first error that I have
to note is the extent of the land taken up for fixation of fair rent.
Consequently, the Executive Officer shall fix the fair rent for the entire
extent of 2941 sq.ft.
7. In so far as the value of the land is concerned, the Executive
Officer has fixed the rent only as per the rent control proceedings. As per
Section 34-A(1) of the HR and CE Act, the rent must be fixed as per the
“prevailing market rental value” and this should have been revised once
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
in every three years. The rent was fixed in the year 2006. It is only by
virtue of an interim order of this Court, a sum of Rs.14,478/- is being
deposited towards rentals. There has been no revision of the rent for a
block period of three years from 2009 onwards.
8. First, the institution which is getting the benefit of fair rent is a
temple, which is perpetually a minor and this Court has taken note of that
fact and accordingly pass orders. Secondly, the Executive Officer ought
to have fixed the rental value for the period of three years from 2006 and
it should have revised it once in every three years thereafter. That not
having been done, though it is the revision at the instance of the revision
petitioners and since it is an infraction of statutory direction, I am
constrained to interfere with the orders of the respondents 1 & 2 and
consequently, the following orders are passed:
(i) The orders of the Executive Officer, the 2nd respondent dated
15.07.2011 and the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, in A.P.No.50
of 2012 dated 12.02.2013 are set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Executive Officer to fix the rental
value from 2006 onwards at the prevailing market rental value of the
relevant time, following the statutory directions under Section 34-A(1) of
the HR and CE Act read with its explanation.
(iii) The Executive Officer shall calculate the rent for the block
period of three years and revise it once in three years till 2023.
(iv) He shall give adjustment towards Rs.22,31,470/- or any other
payment that has been made by the tenant in favour of the temple
pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The said exercise shall
be completed within four weeks from today.
(v) It is made clear that the amounts that have been paid by the
subtenants cannot be adjusted, since under this order, value is being fixed
for the entire extent of 2941 sq.ft.
(vi) The tenant shall continue to remit a sum of Rs.14,478.00
pending the fixation of fair rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
9. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
Call the matter for compliance on 07.09.2023.
01.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
Note:Issue order copy on 01.08.2023
To
1.The Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1256 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1,2,5 & 6 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
