Madras High Court
P.Kannan vs The Commissioner on 4 April, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1065
W.A.No.206 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No. 206 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No. 2090 of 2023
P.Kannan .. Appellant
vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Manmatheeswararthiru Koil,
Kuttalam Taluk,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 801. .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated
03.01.2023 made in W.P.No. 7552 of 2021.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
W.A.No.206 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.U.Kathiravan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition had been filed
seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department / R1 dated
09.03.2020. In that order, R1 has dismissed the revision petition filed by
the writ petitioner on the ground that he was not paying fair rent in
respect of the property at S.No. 176/2 ad-measuring 1600 sq feet in the
vicinity of Manmatheeswararthiru temple (premises / premises in
question).
2. It was the stand of the appellant before the writ court that he
had been paying the rent as originally fixed by the authorities, regularly.
According to him, there had been no order of fixation of fair rent that had
been served at any time and hence the order of the Commissioner
confirming his eviction was incorrect.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader who had
appeared before the writ court contended that the fair rent had in fact
been fixed with effect from 01.07.2016 and the total arrears payable by
the petitioner amounts to a sum of Rs.15,62,592/-. Out of the aforesaid
amount, sum of Rs.5 lakhs had already been paid to the authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
4. Filing of statutory appeal in in terms of Section 34-A(3) of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act) would require
pre-deposit of the entirety of the balance amount to be paid. The writ
court has recorded at paragraph 5 that the petitioner had in fact acceded
that he would pay 50% of the amount i.e., Rs.7,30,156/- that was the
balance of the arrears.
5. Hence the Court concluded that if 50% of the balance was
paid by the petitioner then yet another copy of the fair rent proceedings
shall be served upon him and this shall pave the way for writ petitioner to
file statutory appeal in terms of Section 34-A(3) of the Act. In such
circumstances, the petitioner could canvass his case before the authorities
in accordance with law. The Court also made it clear that if the amount
was not paid within the period stipulated, for which 30 days was granted,
he cannot avail the benefit granted under that order.
6. Section 34A requires that if any person is aggrieved by an
order of rent fixation, he may file an appeal within 30 days from date of
receipt of the order accompanied by satisfactory proof of deposit of the
lease rent fixed or refixed. Hence the writ court has been more than
generous in restricting the amount to be paid by the writ petitioner to
50% of the balance of fair rent and not the entirety, as required by the
statute.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has not complied with the directions
at paragraph 7 of the order of the writ court and hence he would have to
suffer the consequences. It is also to be noted that the appellant has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
been in a position to persuade this Court to grant an interim stay of the
impugned order passed in 2023, despite which, he continues to be in
occupation of the premises in question.
8. Yet another development that has transpired pending this
writ appeal is that an order had come to be passed by the Joint
Commissioner on 10.02.2025 for eviction of the writ petitioner pursuant to
the order passed by the Commissioner confirming the order holding him to
be an encroacher in terms of Section 78 of the Act.
9. The appellant had challenged that order in W.P.No.5521 of
2025 and after noticing the entire trajectory of the matter, including the
fact that the petitioner has not complied with the directions under order
dated 03.1.2023, dis-entitling himself to the statutory remedies available
under the Act, the writ petition was disposed keeping open the liberty of
the petitioner to pursue the present writ appeal. In effect, the prayer in
that writ petition came to be rejected.
10. As far as the present writ appeal is concerned, learned
counsel for appellant would only reiterate the submissions made in the
writ petition itself, drawing attention to the effect that pre-revised rent
has been paid by him and that it continues to be paid.
11. We are not impressed with the submissions made for the
reason that, that position has already been taken note of by the learned
Judge in the impugned order. It is only after taking note of this factual
position that liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to move a statutory
appeal, upon condition that a portion of the disputed arrears be paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
Petitioner has deliberately not chosen to avail that benefit / liberty granted
and hence we find no reason to intervene in the order under challenge.
12. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, we do not find any
merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
04.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssm
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 001.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Manmatheeswararthiru Koil,
Kuttalam Taluk,
Mayiladuthurai District – 609 801.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
ssm
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:46 pm )
