Disposed

Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik v. the Commissioner

Madras HC26 Jun 2024WP/10813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to register a three-year lease deed executed by a denomination temple. Court held no Section 34 HR&CE permission is required for leases below three years and registration cannot be stalled without prior fair rent fixation; directed registration within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub Registrar to register the lease deed within 7 days; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶7

Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Commissioner

¶10

Greater Chennai Corporation

¶11

Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶12

The Executive Engineer

¶13

Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation

¶14

No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶15

The Zonal Officer

¶16

Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation

¶17

No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶18

The Area Engineer

¶19

Greater Chennai Corporation Division 142, No.2/12, West Jones Road, West Saidapet

¶20

Chennai-600 015.

¶21

Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple Rep. by its Managing Trustees Thiru.A.Madanagopal Chettiar Perumal Koil Street, West Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

¶22

The Commissioner, HR and CE Board Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34.

¶23

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

¶24

1/7

¶25

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶26

The Sub Registrar (Joint II) Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. Respondents

¶27

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 7th respondent to register the lease deed already furnished on 03.11.2023 at the earliest.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthu Kumar, Senior Counsel for T.G.Balachandran

¶29

For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi for R1 to R4 Mr.L.Damodharan for R5 Mr.K.Karthikeyan for R6 Government Advocate (HR & CE) Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan for R7 Special Government Pleader

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This writ petition has been filed for a direction, directing the 7th respondent to register the lease deed already furnished on 03.11.2023 at the earliest.

¶32

It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the 5^th respondent has

¶33

executed a lease deed for a period of 3 years. When the lease deed was presented for registration, the same has not been registered, kept pending and directed the petitioner to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the 6^th respondent.

¶34

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

¶35

2/7

¶36

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶37

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the lease deed is below the period of three years, no permission is required under Section 34 of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶38

4.The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that as the temple

¶39

is a denomination temple, resolution is passed and as the lease is only for a period of 3 years, the question of obtaining under Section 34 of the Act does not arise at all.

¶40

The learned Government Advocate (HR & CE) appearing for the 6^th respondent submitted that lease deed has been produced without following the market value as per Section 34-A of the Act. Therefore, it is the violation of the Act.

¶41

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶42

At the outset, this Court is of the view that the lease is between the petitioner and the denomination temple. The petitioner and the 5^th respondent

¶43

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

¶44

3/7

¶45

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶46

temple has agreed to certain terms and the period of lease is below three years, therefore, permission mandated under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is not required from the Joint Commissioner. If at all the 6^th respondent/Board has any grievance with regard to the rent, first fair rent must be fixed under Section 34-A of the Act by the Commissioner. Therefore, without fixing the fair rent by the authorities, now the registration cannot be stalled. If at all the the sixth respondent wants to fix the fair rent, it is for them to act as per law, particularly, taking note of the fact that the temple is a denomination temple.

¶47

Such view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the Sub Registrar to register the document within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶48

26.06.2024

¶49

dhk Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶50

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

4/7

WP.No.10813 of 2024

The Commissioner

¶55

Greater Chennai Corporation

¶56

Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶57

The Executive Engineer

¶58

Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶59

The Zonal Officer

¶60

Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶61

The Area Engineer

¶62

Greater Chennai Corporation Division 142, No.2/12, West Jones Road, West Saidapet

¶63

Chennai-600 015.

¶64

The Commissioner, HR and CE Board Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34.

¶65

The Sub Registrar (Joint II) Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶66

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

¶67

5/7

¶68

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶69

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk

W.P.No.10813 of 2024

26.06.2024

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

¶74

6/7

¶75

WP.No.10813 of 2024

¶76

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

¶77

7/7

Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik 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

Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Thangamani, Vs Union of India

K.Malarvizhi Vs The commissioner

Vasuki Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Venkatesan @ Gopu, Vs the District Collector

S.Kamarudeen Vs the District Collector