This is a second appeal where tenants of a temple property challenge the eviction and denial of compensation for superstructures. The High Court held that post-amendment, tenant protection acts do not apply to temple properties, dismissing the tenant appeals.
Both Second Appeals dismissed with costs; eviction decree confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.02.2014
Coram
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH
Sundari ...Appellant in S.A.910 of 2004 Natarajan ...Appellant in S.A.1210 of 2004 .. Vs ..
Arulmigu Vilva Vinayagar Temple rep. by its heriditary Trustee Plani Anandan Gurukkal ...Respondent both S.As
Prayer in S.A.No.910 of 2004:Second Appeal is filed against
the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.32 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Cuddalore,dated 14.7.2003, reversing the Judgment and Decree, made in O.S.No.280 of 1989, on the file of the Additional District Munsiff Court, Cuddalore, dated 4.12.2001.
Prayer in S.A.No.1210 of 2004:Second Appeal is filed against
the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 112 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Cuddalore,dated 14.7.2003, reversing the Judgment and Decree, made in O.S.No. 279 of 1989, on the file of the Additional District Munsiff Court, Cuddalore, dated 4.12.2001.
Both the Appellants have filed these Second Appeals against the separate decree and judgments of First Appellate Court, confirming the decree and Judgments made by the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in both the Suits are referred as appellants and the plaintiff in both Suits is referred as respondent herein.
2.The deceased first plaintiff namely C.K.Subramania Gurukkal filed separate Suits in O.S.Nos.279 of 1989 and 280 of 1989, as hereditary trustee of the Temple, seeking the reliefs of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property in both the Suits. During the pendency of the Suits, the previous trustee namely C.K.Subramania Gurukkal died and the respondent herein namely Palani Ananda Gurukkal, son of the above said deceased Subramania Gurukkal, has been impleaded as second plaintiff in both the Suits.
3.Briefly the case of the respondent avered in the Plaints and reply statements is that the Suit property in both the Suits belongs to the Temple and respondent's family is managing the Temple properties for more than 80 years. During the period of emergency the Government took over the temple administration and appointed the 'Maniam' of Cuddalore namely Mr.G.Paramasivam Chettiyar as 'Fit Person'. The appellants entered into rental agreements with him in both Suits and executed Rent deeds in favour of the 'Fit Person' in respect of the vacant site in both Suit properties, agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs.2/- each. The appellants in both suits have put up thatched sheds in the vacant site of the suit properties and residing with their families. The deceased first plaintiff filed an Application before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, for the relief of declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of the Temple, the Deputy Commissioner, allowed the said Application and appointed him as hereditary trustee under Section 63(1) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. Accordingly, the deceased/first plaintiff taken over the management of the temple in 1985. The appellants in both the Appeals have recognised the deceased first plaintiff as hereditary trustee. According to the respondent, both the appellants have not been regular in payment of monthly rent and hence, legal notices were issued to the appellants on 17.2.1987, demanding arrears of rent. The appellants paid a sum of Rs.125/- and Rs.110/- respectively upto February, 1987 and December 1986. Both the appellants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10/- per month from March 1987 and January 1987 respectively. Since both the appellants have not paid the entire rent, the deceased first plaintiff issued legal notice on 16.8.1988, but, both the appellants have not sent any reply. Therefore, the deceased first plaintiff filed both Suits for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the Suits, the first plaintiff died on 28.11.1993, leaving behind his only son namely Palani Anandha Gurukkal - second plaintiff in the Suits, as the sole hereditary trustee of the temple. Further the case of the respondent is that after the Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act 1994, Act No.2 of 1996, the properties belong to the Temple are exempted and hence the appellants not pressed and dismissed the petitions filed under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Since the appellants have admitted the status of the respondent as hereditary trustee and paid the rent, the appellants are estopped from contending otherwise. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board is not a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessary party. The respondent is not entitled to pay any
compensation for superstructures.
4.Both the appellants have admitted in their written statements that the Suit property in both the suits belongs to respondent Arulmigu Vilva Vinayagar Temple. But it is stated that the appellants were not aware of the fact that the respondent Temple is under the Management of the respondent's family for two generations. The appellants were also not aware of the order dated 27.12.1984, and the deceased first plaintiff taken over the Management of the Temple in 1985, the respondent cannot claim to be the hereditary trustee of the temple on the basis of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Office has not devolved on the respondent as hereditary trustee. The appellants have admitted that agreements have been executed in favour of G.Paramasivam Chettiyar, who was the 'Fit Person' of the Temple. The appellants denied the allegations that the appellants have not been regular in payment of rent as incorrect. According to the appellants, they are in possession of the Suit properties as tenants 25 years and they were also allowed to put up superstructures in the suit properties and they are entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and therefore filed separate Petitions under section 9 of the said Act. Further, the Hindu Religious and Endowment Board is a necessary party to the Suits and therefore, the Suits are not maintainable as barred by non- joinder of necessary party. It is also avered in the written statements that both the appellants had constructed superstructure at the cost of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. Since the respondent has not issued valid notice to quit the same as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the respondent is not entitled to get any relief.
5.The trial Court has framed necessary issues in both the Suits and after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side in both suits, finally dismissed both the Suits. Aggrieved over the above said findings of the trial Court, the respondent preferred separate First Appeals i.e A.S.Nos.32 of 2003 and 112 of 2002. The First Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court in both Suits and allowed both the First appeals and decreed the Suits as prayed for. Aggrieved by the above said reversal findings of the First Appellate Court, the appellants have preferred these Second Appeals.
6.This Court has admitted both Second Appeals on the following substantial questions of law as under:
S.A.No.910 of 2004
"Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in not deciding about the eligibility of the defendant (appellant) to get the cost of the building as claimed in the additional written statement."
S.A.No.1210 of 2004
"Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in not dealing with the compensation sought for, for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ superstructure, while granting decree for possession."
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire records.
8.Admittedly the Suit property in both the Suits belongs to the respondent Temple. It is also not in dispute that the appellants in both the Second Appeals are the tenants in the respondent Temple's properties. Appellants have not produced any reliable evidence to prove that no arrears of rent. However, a perusal of the records would reveal that the appellants have not paid the rents regularly and they have defaulted in payment of rents to the respondent Temple.
9.In the above said circumstances, the respondent/Temple filed two Suits by representing its hereditary trustee namely the deceased Subramania Gurukkal for eviction of both the appellants, after giving necessary eviction notices. During the pendency of the Suits, the above said hereditary trustee namely Subramania Gurukkal died and his son namely Palani Aanandha Gurukkal was impleaded as second plaintiff and proceeded the case as hereditary trustee.
10.Before the Courts below, the main contention of the appellants is that, both the appellants have executed Rent Deeds in favour of the then 'Fit Person' namely Paramasivam Chettiyar and in both the Suits Hindu Religious Endowment Board was not impleaded as a party and hence both the Suits are not maintainable. Further, the appellants contended before the Courts below that they were not aware of the earlier proceedings issued by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, appointing Subramaniam Gurukkal as hereditary trustee and later his son Palani Ananda Gurukkal as hereditary trustee.
11.A perusal of the proceedings of the HR & CE reveal that already the deceased Subramaniam Gurukkal was recognised as hereditary trustee and after his death his son Palani Ananda Gurukkal was recognised as hereditary trustee. The appellants have not challenged the above said proceedings till date. Therefore, the above said Palani Anandha Gurukkal on behalf of the Temple as hereditary trustee to evict the appellants, is entitled to file suits on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the instant cast, the appellants have also not challenged the eviction notices duly served on them, which were issued by the respondent in both Suits.
12.The appellants mainly contended before this Court that the appellants have put up superstructures in the vacant site belongs to the temple and therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation for the above said superstructures as per the provisions of section 3 of the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No.2 of 1996), but the First Appellate Court has not considered the above said legal provisions and not awarded any compensation.
13.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that after amendment of Madras City Tenant's Protection Act (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No.2 of 1996), the provisions of Madras City Tenant's Protection Act not applicable to the properties belonging to the temple and therefore the appellants cannot claim any compensation under the above said Act, as claimed by the appellants.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of his contentions relied on the following two decisions: (i) SIVANANDA GRAMANI v. MOHAMED ISMALI reported in 72 L.W. 256 and
(ii) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., v. VUMMIDI KHAN reported in 1991 TNLJ 80
15.Admittedly, the above said decisions are rendered prior to the Amended Act 2 of 1996. The facts in the above said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
16.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the provisions of the Amended Act 2 & 3 of 1996, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation as per the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. It is relevant to extract the above said provisions as under:
"2.In section 1 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, (hereinafter Amendment of referred to as the principal Act), in sub-section (3), in the first proviso, after clause (e), section1, the following clause shall be added, namely:-
Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922
"(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu Muslim, Christian or other religion.
Explanation:-For the purpose f this clause,(A) "religious institution " means any -
(i)temple; (ii)math; (iii)mosque (iv)church; or (v)other place by whatever name known.
Which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, and community or section thereof as a place of public religious worship;
(B) "religious charity" means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character (including a wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character), whether it be connected with any religious institution or not:"
Certain pending proceedings to abate.
3.Every proceedings instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall, in so far as the proceedings relates to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, cease and determine and shall not be enforceable.
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date."
17.On a perusal of the above said provisions of The Madras City Tenant's Protection Act (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No.2 of 1996), revealed that the appellants are not entitled to claim any compensation, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. On the side of the appellants, no other provisions or decisions have been relied to show that they are entitled to seek compensation for superstructures under the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation for superstructure and the findings of the First Appellate Court is not a perverse finding or illegal and both the substantial questions of law framed in both the apples are answered accordingly. In view of the above said findings, both the appeals are to be dismissed and the decrees and Judgments of the First Appellate Court are to be confirmed.
18.In the result, both the Second Appeals viz. S.A.Nos.910 of 2004 and 1210 of 2004 are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V) Dated : 23.04.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpa
To
Copy to
The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.A.Nos. 910 & 1210 of 2004
RJ (CO)
PSI (23/04/2014)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether tenants of temple properties are entitled to compensation for superstructures under the amended Madras City Tenants Protection Act.
Whether the amendment to the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1994 excludes properties belonging to religious institutions from tenant protection benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sivananda Gramani v. Mohamed IsmailiDistinguished¶31
72 L.W. 256
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Vummidi KhanDistinguished¶31
1991 TNLJ 80
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sundari
Natarajan
Palani Anandan Gurukkal
Natarajan
R. Karuppiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
