Disposed

Kushma Kumari Alias Yamini v. The Commissioner

Madras HC11 Jan 2023WP/732/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a cancellation order and sealing of temple premises. It directed the petitioner to pay 50% of arrears within two months, with one installment in one month, upon which relief will be granted and fair rent fixed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay 50% of arrears (Rs.13,09,240) within two months; one installment within one month. Upon payment, premises to be de-sealed and fair rent fixed.

Kushma Kumari Alias Yamini Vs The Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 11/1/2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶7

a n d

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.671, 674 and 676 of 2023

¶9

Kushma Kumari @ Yamini

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

¶12

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam

¶13

Chennai 600 034.

¶14

The Executive Officer Arulmighu Aranganatha Swamy Thirukoil No.42 Mulla Street, Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Proceedings dated 18/8/2022 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to deseal the

¶18

premises bearing Door No.10 Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶19

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

¶20

Page No:1/6

¶21

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶22

For Petitioner ... Mr.L.Chandrakumar For respondents ... Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader - - - - -

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

This writ petition has been filed to quash the Proceeding, dated 18/8/2022, issued by the second respondent and direct the second respondent to deseal the premises, bearing Door No.10 Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing Door No.10/19 Audiappa Chetty Street, Chennai, is belonging to the second respondent temple. The said property was leased out to the petitioner's father by the second respondent temple long back. He constructed a building, with the permission of the second respondent temple and was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the rent of Rs.200/- p.m. Father of the petitioner died on 27/7/1987.

¶27

The second respondent has issued a cancellation order, dated

¶28

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

¶29

Page No:2/6

¶30

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶31

18/8/2022, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the rent of Rs.5,91,750/- was not paid and cancelled the lease with effect from 20/9/2022 and directed to handover the possession, failing which proceedings will be initiated, under Sections 34 – B and 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, and further, directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,09,240/- being the arrears of rent.

¶32

The main grievance of the petitioner is that originally, the rent was

¶33

only Rs.2,000/-. Without serving notice on the petitioner, fair rent has been fixed at Rs.22,000/-. Hence, the petitioner had come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated supra.

¶34

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader

¶36

takes notice for the respondents.

¶37

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶38

respondents submitted that one sub-tenant - Mr.Duraikannu has already filed a

¶39

writ petition, in W.P.No.31247 of 2022, wherein the petitioner herein was one https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/6

¶40

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶41

of the respondents. When the matter was taken up for hearing, on 2/12/2022, counsel for the petitioner therein, submitted that the petitioner would prefer to vacate from the premises.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is the original tenant. Considering the fact that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner, while fixing the fair rent, when this Court asked whether the petitioner is ready to pay 50% of arrears amount of Rs.13,09,240/-, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requests two months time to pay 50% of the arrears amount.

¶43

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the arrears amount of Rs.13,09,240/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs nine thousand two hundred and forty only), within a period of two months, from today and the first instalment shall be paid within a period of one month from today. On such payment, the respondents are directed to de-seal the premises. In the meanwhile, respondents shall serve notice on the petitioner and fix the fair rent and the petitioner shall continue to pay the fair rent as undertaken before this Court, without any protest. In the event, the petitioner fails to pay the fair rent fixed by the respondents, the respondents are entitled to proceed as per law for eviction.

¶44

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

¶45

Page No:4/6

¶46

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assured that whatever

¶48

the rent fixed by the respondents, he will abide by the same and continue to pay the same.

¶49

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶50

11/1/2023

¶51

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶52

mvs.

¶53

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶54

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

¶55

Page No:5/6

¶56

Writ Petition No.732 of 2023

¶57

mvs.

¶58

¶59

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034.

¶60

The Executive Officer Arulmighu Aranganatha Swamy Thirukoil No.42 Mulla Street, Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079.

¶61

W.P.No.732 of 2023 a n d W.M.P.Nos.671, 674 and 676 of 2023

¶62

11/1/2023

¶63

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

¶64

Page No:6/6

Kushma Kumari Alias Yamini v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushma Kumari Alias Yamini v. The Commissioner

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

A.Chidambaram Vs The District Collector

M/s.Madras Infra Vs The Commissioner

Dhanasekaran Vs The Commissioner

S.Anandakumar Vs The Regional Transport officer

V.Rajasekar Vs The District Collector

M/s.Kcp Infra Ltd. Vs The Superintending Engineer