Madras High Court
Dhanasekharan vs The Joint Commissioner on 14 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD) No.21397 and 21398 of 2022
Dhanasekharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District.
2.The Executive Officer,
Adi Kumbheshwarar Thirukkovil,
Kumbhakonam,
Thanjavur District.
3.Chandrashekar ... Respondents
(R3 is given up as per Court order dated 01.12.2022
and obtained endorsement on 12.06.2023 from the
petitioner's counsel as per the Court order dated 25.04.2023)
_________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent through the third
respondent dated 01.03.2022 and the consequential impugned
proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.02/2022 dated
10.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
ORDER
The writ petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second
respondent through third respondent dated 01.03.2022 and the
consequential proceedings initiated by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.02/2022, dated 10.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
2.It is necessary to set out the petitioner's case in order to dispose
of this writ petition:-
(i) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant under the Adi
Kumbheshwarar Thirukkovil. He has been in occupation of the shop in
Survey No.1248, Kumbhakonam, Thanjavur District, measuring an
extent of 220 sq. ft. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the shop
was allotted in the name of his father, Late Krishnamoorthy and that he
has been running a bakery in the said shop. The petitioner would submit
that he has been very regular in the payment of the rent fixed and
demanded by the temple. The petitioner would go on to state as to how
under the scheme of the Act, fair rent has to be fixed in respect of the
property belonging to the temple. The petitioner would quote the
provision of Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act 1959
(hereinafter called as 'the Act' ) and also quote the Division Bench
Judgment of this Court reported in 2009 6 CTC 512, wherein this Court
had held that although the provisions of Section 34(A) did not
contemplate issuance of notice before fixation of rent, however, by
telescoping the principles of natural justice into this provision, the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
lessees should be given an opportunity to submit their objections to the
fair rent that has to be fixed. The petitioner would submit that the fair
rent fixed by the committee alone would be in compliance of the
provisions of Section 34(A) of the Act and only thereafter, would their be
an obligation on the lessee to pay the enhanced rent.
(ii) However, it is the petitioner's case that such an exercise as
contemplated under Section 34(A) has not been undertaking and the
second respondent temple has suo motu enhanced the rent and the
petitioner has been kept in the dark. He would further submit that the
respondent without following the procedure for fixing the rent and
without intimating the fixation, retrospectively enhanced the rent from
2016 and called upon the tenants to pay the same immediately, failing
which, they had threatened to lock and seal the subject premises. This
constrained the petitioner to file W.P(MD) No.3932 of 2022 seeking the
orders from this Court directing the respondents not to take coercive
steps to evict the petitioner except by following the due process of law.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
(iii) This Court by order, dated 03.03.2022, directed the respondent
to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation. While this
proceeding was pending, the third respondent on behalf of the second
respondent had issued a legal notice dated 01.03.2022 terminating the
tenancy and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of
the premises by 31.03.2022, failing which, he would be treated as an
encroacher under Section 78 of the Act. This notice is challenged in the
present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would
submit that the entire proceeding is ex facie without jurisdiction, since
there has been no fixation of fair rent as contemplated by the provisions
of Section 34(A) of the Act. This is the fulcrum and pivot, on which, the
arguments of the petitioner rest.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted a
set of documents indicating the fixation of fair rent, rents paid etc. He
would submit that the writ petition has been filed against the notice to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
quit issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would
further submit that the fixation of rent has been done as per the procedure
contemplated under the Act and that apart, the petitioner himself
accepted the revised rent and was paying the rent at the revised rate.
Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition in question.
5. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner would clearly
show that on 30.05.2018, the committee as contemplated under Section
34(A) of the Act, had fixed fair rent in respect of the shops belonging to
the temple. In this list of tenants, the petitioner's father is shown at Serial
No.90 and corresponding fair rent is fixed at Rs.7,800/-. This document
would further contain the following postscript:-
%.K 7581/2018 < 1 ehs; 10-18
,j;jpUf;NfhapYf;fhd 94 kidg;gFjp
01.07.2016 Kjy; epaha thlif
eph;zak; nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
6. Further from the receipt filed by the respondents dated
06.02.2019 issued in favour of the petitioner's father, would clearly show
that the petitioner's father has paid revised rent, namely, Rs.7,800/- and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
that apart, the receipt would further give the following details:-
“epaha thlif eph;zak; - ,iz
Mizah; %.K.vz;.7581/2018/<1 ehs; 31.10.2018
cj;jutpd;gb gryp 1428 Kba cs;s
epYitapy; Xh; gFjpahf njhif tuT
(Damages for use and occupation)”
7. In the light of the above, it is clear that the case put forward by
the petitioner that the fair rent has not been fixed in keeping with the
provisions of Section 34(A) of the Act and that the petitioner has been
kept in the dark, is contrary to the truth. Therefore, the order which is
impugned is only notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act and this notice to quit is challenged only on the ground that
rent has not been fixed as per the procedure and without intimation to the
petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition has to necessarily be fail and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the respondent
temple that the petitioner has taken on sub lease of three other shops and
has integrated the same into one unit. It is open to the respondents to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
initiate such action by following due process of law. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cp
To
The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
W.P.(MD) No.27272 of 2022
Dated: 14.06.2023
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
