Partly allowed

Scientific Advance Company v. the Hereditary Trustee

Madras HC18 Sept 2019WP/27063/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order fixing lease rent of Rs. 9,229/- because the Hereditary Trustee failed to follow the mandatory procedures under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The matter was remanded to the Trustee for refixing the rent through the appointed committee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order confirming the lease revision was set aside and matter remanded. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 9,229/- until new order.

Scientific Advance Company Vs the Hereditary Trustee — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 27063 of 2004

¶6

Scientific Advance Company,
No.38, (Old No.109),
Apparswamy Koil Street,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hereditary Trustee,
Arulmigu Apparswamy Koil,
No.171, Royapettah High Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Administration Department,
Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent, pertaining to the order in so far as it relates to the order dated 19.07.2004 in R.P. No.151/2003D2, in confirming the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 01.10.2003 and quash the same and forbear the 1^st respondent from claiming the rent at Rs.9,229/- per month with effect from 01.11.2001.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balachandar For Respondents : Mr.G.Sugumaran for R1

¶9

Mr.M.Maharaja, Special Govt. Pleader for R2

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent revising the lease amount.

¶13

The petitioner is a lessee under the 1^st respondent and even though the property was residential in nature, it was used for commercial purpose. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent Executive Officer has arbitrarily revised the lease amount without following the procedures contemplated under Sec.34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and fixed the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.9,229/-. The 2^nd respondent appellate authority has also without considering the case in proper perspective has confirmed the order.

¶14

Mr. G.Sugumaran, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioner is using the premises for commercial activities, and the 1^st respondent on considering the prevailing market value and taking into consideration of overall circumstances, the 1^st respondent has revised the lease amount from Rs.3500/- to Rs.9229/-.

¶15

I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the records carefully.

¶16

Admittedly, the order has been passed by the hereditary trustee on 01.10.2003. But, under Sec.34-A of the Act, which came into force on 10.05.2003, the lease is to be fixed by the Committee consisting of Joint Commissioner, Executive Officer, Trustee or Chairman of Board of trustees and the Registration Department of the District and after taking into account of the privileged market value and the guidelines. But, in the instant case, after Sec.34-A of the Act came into force, without following the procedures contemplated under the Act, the hereditary trustee has fixed the lease amount. It is in total contravention of Sec.34-A of the Act and on that sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the 2^nd respondent in R.P. No.151/2003D2 confirming the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 01.10.2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent is directed to follow the procedures contemplated under Sec.34-A of the Act and refix the lease amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner now paying the monthly rent of Rs.9229/-as fixed by the 1^st respondent in the impugned order and hence, he has to continue to pay the amount till the order passed by the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

committee. Considering his submissions, the petitioner is directed to pay the lease amount at the rate of Rs.9229/- till the order passed by the 1^st respondent under Sec.34-A of the Act. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Hereditary Trustee,
Arulmigu Apparswamy Koil,
No.171, Royapettah High Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Administration Department,
Chennai-600 034.
+1cc to Mr.Balachander, Advocate, S.R.No. 80504
+1cc to Mr.Sugumaran, Advocate, S.R.No. 80134
+2cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 81246
W.P. 27063 of 2004

¶20

MG(CO) GN(31/10/2019)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Scientific Advance Company v. the Hereditary Trustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Scientific Advance Company v. the Hereditary Trustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Hadimba International Vs the Registrar, the

Human Rights Organization Vs Director General of Police

M/S.B.N.T.Connnections. Vs the Chairman

Mrs.R.M.Manimekhalai, Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

A.Krishnamachari. Vs the Commissioner, Hindu Religi

K.M.Senthil Vs 1.CHANCELLOR-CUM-VICE Presiden