Partly allowed

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Oct 2021WP/10286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice for lease rent regarding a temple shop. The court directed the respondents to fix the lease rent pursuant to Section 34-A of the TN HR & CE Act, considering the precedent set in M.Gurusamy Nadar, and completed the disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to fix lease rent under Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act within three months; dismissed connected WMPs.

M.Srinivasan Vs The Commissioner — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.NO.10286 OF 2021 & W.M.P.NO.10883 OF 2021

¶6

M.Srinivasan ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Commissioner,

¶9

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.

¶10

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.

¶11

The Board of Trustees, Sri Kadubadi Chinnamman Thirukoil, Jayarama Chetty Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the demand notice dt.29.03.2021, issued by the 3rd Respondent, at the behest of the 2nd Respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sharath Chandran For Respondent : Mr.NRR.Arun Natrajan R1 & R2 Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.Abdul Majeed Representing Ms.G.Sumitra

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Mr.K.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for sole writ petitioner, Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for third respondent are before this Court.

¶18

In the captioned writ petition, a 'communication dated 29.03.2021 from the third respondent to the writ petitioner' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been assailed i.e., called in question.

¶19

Before I advert to the impugned order, it is necessary to mention that subject matter of captioned writ petition is lease of a small shop by a temple i.e., 'Arulmighu Kadumbadi Chinnamman Thirukkoil at No.53, Jayaram Chetty Street, West Saidapet, Chennai – 15' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity) to the writ petitioner. To be noted, said temple is governed by 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶20

4. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the demised property is a small shop constituted by land and superstructure. This shall hereinafter be referred to as 'demised shop' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the impugned order demands rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month on and from 01.07.2016 i.e., fasli 1426 and this is impermissible as there is a history, according to learned counsel for writ petitioner, originally the rent was Rs.650/- per mensum, but after some discussions, it was enhanced to Rs.3000/- per month and he is already depositing the same on and from 18.03.2021 in Bank account of said temple. This is subject to some disputation or disagreement by learned counsel for third respondent. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to not to embark upon this factual disputation, more so in a writ petition. Another reason for refraining from embarking upon this factual disputation is, captioned writ petition can be disposed of by making a simple order without getting into those disputations or disagreements.

¶21

5. There is no disputation or disagreement that the writ petitioner is a lessee under said temple qua demised shop. There is also no disputation or disagreement that demised shop being property belonging to said temple, will stand governed by TN HR & CE Act. Therefore, the mechanism/methodology statutorily prescribed in TN HR & CE Act will have to be applied for

¶22

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

¶23

computing and deciding the lease rent qua demised shop. This methodology and mechanism is adumbrated in Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act which kicked in on and from 10.05.2003. Learned counsel for writ petitioner adverting to M.Gurusamy Nadar's case [M.Gurusamy Nadar Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department] being an order made by this Court and reported in 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167 and more particularly paragraph 17 thereat submits that lease rent cannot be fixed prior to 10.05.2003.

¶24

6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for writ petitioner also submits that writ petitioner has been depositing rent qua demised shop at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month on and from 18.03.2021 and this Court is informed that deposit is in the bank account of said temple. Learned counsel for third respondent submits that this requires to be verified as he does not have instructions readily on hand on the same. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect as learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, very fairly submits that writ petitioner will pay rent for demised shop at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month (pay to said temple) on and from 18.03.2021 after adjustments qua payments said to have been already deposited. Obviously, lease rent has to be fixed for demised shop in accordance with Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act. The respondents and all others concerned will do well to commence and conclude the exercise of fixation of lease rent qua demised shop in accordance with Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act keeping in mind M.Gurusamy Nadar's case, as expeditiously as the business of the respondents would permit and in any event within three months from today i.e., on or before 06.01.2022.

¶25

7. Captioned writ petition is disposed of by making the aforementioned simple order. In the light of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for writ petitioner (on instructions) that the demised shop consists of land and superstructure (notwithstanding a new superstructure being put up by the writ petitioner with consent of said temple) any documentation that is required for formalizing this position i.e., land and superstructure qua demised shop belonging to said temple shall also be completed. Consequently, connected WMPs are also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

gpa

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034. 3. The Board of Trustees, Sri Kadubadi Chinnamman Thirukoil, Jayarama Chetty Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. +1cc to M/s.Govind Chandrasekhar, Advocate, S.R.No.52658 +1cc to Ms.G.Sumitra, Advocate, S.R.No.52372

¶34

W.P.NO.10286 OF 2021 & W.M.P.NO.10883 OF 2021

¶35

SR-II(CO) PBS/15/11/2021

¶36

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

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Maniammal Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Umashankar Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs The Joint Commissioner

Housr Industries Association Vs State of TamilNadu

Kalaiselvi Vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector

B.v.Govindappa Vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector

Shri Madras Kutch Kadava Patidar Samaj Vs The Commissioner