Dismissed

Parameswari. M v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC27 Sept 2024WP(MD)/14164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to compel temple authorities to accept arrears of rent for shop no.106 at Courtallam, claiming 30 years' family tenancy. The court found she was not a lessee: the shop stood allotted to one Sudalai and receipts were in his name. Writ petition dismissed, liberty granted to pursue pending lease-transfer application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Parameswari. M Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶7

M.Parameswari ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Courtallam,

¶10

Tenkasi District.

¶11

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kutralanatha Swamy Thirukoil, Courtallam,

¶12

Tenkasi District.

¶13

3.M.Thiruppathi ... Respondents

¶14

[R3 is impleaded vide order dated 15.07.2024 in WMP(MD)No.13784 of 2024]

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to receive the arrears of rent payable for the lease of the shop No.106, Keela Radha Veedhi, Courtallam, Tenkasi District.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Manoj Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj, No.1 Special Government Pleader Respondent : Mr.S.Manohar No.2 Standing Counsel

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive the rent for shop No.106, Keela Radha Veedhi, Courtallam, Tenkasi.

¶22

2.The case of the petitioner is that the shop No.106 is in occupation

¶23

of this petitioner' family for a period of 30 years and they have been paying rent regularly for the past 30 years. In view of the other litigations and the writ petition filed, they are targeting the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 are not receiving the rent. Therefore this petitioner has approached this Court.

¶24

3.The learned Counsel for the respondent temple submits that the shop No.106 was never leased out to the father of the petitioner. As per the temple records this shop No.106 is allotted to one Sudalai. The petitioner's 2/5

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶27

brother one Tirupathi has already filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.453 of 2024 and it was taken up along with WP(MD)No.1276 of 2024 and this Court by common order dated 15.02.2024 disposed both writ petitions holding that Tirupathi and Murugan petitioners therein are not lessees of the temple and therefore they need to be evicted and this Court has also directed to initiate as against all illegal encroachers. The petitioner is the sister of the said Tirupathi. Since Tirupathi has suffered the order, this petitioner has filed this writ petition in order to get relief for Tirupathi. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the temple since petitioner has never been a lessee of the temple, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

¶28

4.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶29

5.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive the arrears of rent payable towards shop No.106. The case of the petitioner is that they have been continuing as lessee and their family members have been paying rent for the past 30 years. However there is no receipt in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner herself has stated that she has filed an application to transfer the lease in her name and the same is pending.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶33

6.Admittedly the petitioner is not a lessee and she is in occupation of

¶34

Shop.No.106, which was originally allotted to one Sudalai. The receipts

¶35

placed before this Court are also in the name of Sudalai. In the absence of any lease agreement, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. This writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to workout her remedy in the application filed for transfer of the lease in her name. No costs.

¶36

27.09.2024

¶37

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶38

DSK

¶39

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Courtallam,

¶40

Tenkasi District.

¶41

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kutralanatha Swamy Thirukoil, Courtallam,

¶42

Tenkasi District.

¶43

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

¶44

4/5

¶45

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

¶47

DSK

¶48

WP(MD)No.14164 of 2024

¶49

27.09.2024

¶50

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

¶51

5/5

Parameswari. M v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parameswari. M v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Sangilipandi alias Sangili Pandi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Arvindh Vs The Inspector of Police

Saronraj @ Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Manika Selvi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

A.Prakash Vs Kalaiselvan

Ranjithkumar @ Ranjith Vs The State of Tamilnadu