Dismissed

Dr. Raja Saravanan v. the Deputy Commissioner

Madras HC12 Oct 2022CRP/1441/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging an order reducing the fair rent of temple premises. The Court held that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity under Section 34-A. It remitted the matter to the Commissioner to fix fair rent after a hearing and directed interim rent payment.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was disposed of with a direction to fix fair rent within three months after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner; interim rent of Rs.25,000/- per month ordered.

Dr. Raja Saravanan Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

1 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No. 1441 of 2017 and

CMP.No.6699 of 2017

Dr. Raja Saravanan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer, Arulmigu Parthasarathy Swamy Thirukkoil, Triplicane, Chennai.

¶12

The Commissioiner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶14

of India, to set aside the order dated 21.03.2018 made in A.P. No.31/2016D2 of the 2nd respondent modifying the order of the 1st respondent dated 12.03.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.715 of 2012 A6 on the file of the 1st

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶16

2 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶17

respondent.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Subramanian For Respondents : Mr. K. Balaji for R1 : No Appearance for R2 to R5

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 21.03.2018 made in A.P. No.31/2016-D2 of the

¶21

2nd respondent modifying the order of the 1st respondent dated 12.03.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.715 of 2012 A6 on the file of the 1st respondent.

¶22

The petitioner is the tenant and the 1^st respondent is the Temple -Landlord and the 2^nd respondent is the HR & CE Department.

¶23

3.The 1^st respondent-Temple issued a demand order dated 12.03.2015 in Na.Ka.No.715/2012/A6 to the petitioner herein fixing the fair rent from 01.12.2013 as Rs.65,850/- per month and requesting him to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,73,890/- to the Temple after adjusting the rent already paid from 01.01.2014 to 05.03.2015. Challenging the

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶25

3 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶26

aforesaid fixation of fair rent order dated 12.03.2015, the petitioner herein has filed A.P.No.31/2016-D2 before the 2^nd respondent wherein the 2^nd respondent reduced the fair rent from Rs.65,850/- per month to Rs.54,720/- per month and directed to pay the revised rent along with the accrued arrears within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the 2^nd respondent herein, the petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the same.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fair rent

¶28

has been fixed by the committee without following the rules and procedure contemplated in the H.R. & C.E Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance of the Judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.8 of 2008 in the case of Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2009-3-L.W.728 wherein it is observed as follows:

¶29

“7. Section 34-A of the H.R. & C.E. Act is attacked in

¶30

two grounds. One is that, no opportunity is given to the lessee before the lease rent is fixed and that the opportunity

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶32

4 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶33

given to the lessee for the first time only in the appeal in the appeal to the commissioner is clearly an illusory one and that to satisfy the requirements of natural justice, the party should be given an opportunity at the time of the original proceeding.”

¶34

5.It has been further submitted that the 1^st respondent-Temple has fixed the rent without giving any sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein before fixing the fair rent and enhanced the rent by 7 times than the original rent fixed as per Agreement of lease dated 29.09.2000 unilaterally. The monthly rent shall be fixed taking into account the raise of 33% of existing rent which is Rs.9,680/- per month. Without considering the aforesaid factual aspects, the 2^nd respondent has ordered to pay the revised rent of Rs.54,720/- per month with the accrued arrears within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order. Hence, the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner/tenant has not raised any objection at the time of fixation of fair

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶37

5 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶38

rent in order to evade the payment of arrears, he put forth false plea before this Court. avoid payment of arrears. The fair rent has been fixed as per the law and procedure contemplated under H.R.& C.E. Act. The petitioner herein has not complied with the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent so far in spite of notice given to him. Hence, this Revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has renovated the building to the extent of 1509 Sq. Ft belonged to the temple at his own costs. In the mean while, the fair rent of Rs.65,850/- per month of the premises is fixed by the 1st respondent herein and thereafter it has been reduced at Rs.58,080/- by the 2nd respondent in the appeal as per direction given by this Court in W.A. No.888 of 2016. However, the contention of the petitioner is that he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his averments in fixation of fair rent as per direction given in the earlier Writ Appeal proceedings. Considering the earlier Writ Appeal direction, the petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity with regard to

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶42

6 CRP.No.1441 of 2017

¶43

fixation of rent. The Commissioner is hereby directed to fix fair rent within a period of three months after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the fixation of fair rent after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein under Section 34-A HR & CE Act, the Revision petitioner is hereby directed to pay rent Rs.25,000/- per month to the Temple and pay the part of arrears of rent of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44