Disposed¶43

Narayanan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jan 2026WP/49627/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HR & CE temple property eviction; eviction order dated 26.11.2025 (Na.Ka.En.857/2011/Aa2) passed in the name of a dead person (tenant-of-record father died 2003) held null and void; repossession denied because possession already taken, building extremely dilapidated and dangerous, and rent arrears of Rs.4,68,352/-; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 disposed of without relief and without costs; Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Tirutani; Madras High Court, 05.01.2026, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

What did the court decide?

None — no further relief granted to the petitioner (repossession refused); writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶43

Narayanan Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — no further relief granted to the petitioner (repossession refused); writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction order passed in the name of the petitioner's father (who died in 2003, while the eviction petition was filed only in 2011) is null and void, and whether the petitioner is entitled to be put back in possession. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The eviction proceedings commenced in 2011 were conducted in the name of the petitioner's father Krishnamaraj, who had already died by then; therefore, those proceedings are null and void.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Although the proceedings are null and void, repossession cannot now be ordered because possession has already been taken and the building is in an extreme dilapidated condition — roof damaged, timber rafters rotten, masonry fissured, joineries cracked — such that putting the petitioner back in possession would be dangerous for his own life.

¶41

Key takeaways

Considering also that the petitioner is in huge arrears of rent, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner; accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) — Narayanan v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai and others, W.P.No.49627 of 2025 (with W.M.P.No.55475 of 2025), decided 05.01.2026. The petitioner, a tenant of a 532 sq.ft portion of an old building belonging to Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Tirutani, sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash an eviction order dated 26.11.2025 (Na.Ka.En.857/2011/Aa2) passed in the name of his father, who had died in 2003. HELD: the eviction petition filed in 2011 before the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE), Vellore, after the father's death, was null and void; but since possession had already been taken, the building was extremely dilapidated and dangerous to occupy, and the petitioner was in arrears of Rs.4,68,352/-, no further relief — including repossession — was granted. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.No.49627 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.49627 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.55475 of 2025

Narayanan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶13

Tiruvallur.

¶14

The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Tirutani.

¶15

The Inspector,

¶16

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirutani.

¶17

The Fit Person, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Tirutani. .. Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.49627 of 2025

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.En.857/2011/Aa2, dated 26.11.2025 and quash the same in accordance with law.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, (HR & CE) Department

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 26.11.2025.

¶25

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the grievance of

¶27

the petitioner is that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the property which is admeasuring 532 Sq.ft, which is a portion of the old building at D.No.3, Thiyagaraya Street, Seven Wells, Chennai.

¶28

Mr.S.Senthilvel , the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶29

that when the petitioner has been paying the rents without issuing any

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.49627 of 2025

¶33

demand whatsoever, suddenly, by obtaining the order in the name of his father who passed away in the year 2003, the petitioner was evicted. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the eviction order that was passed in the name of a dead person, is null and void and he should be put back in possession.

¶34

Per contra , Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan , learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) Department for the respondents, submits that the total arrears of rent amounts to Rs.4,68,352/-. The building is also in dilapidated condition. There were seven tenants occupying the entire building and all of them have now been evacuated. The building is in such a condition that it has to be pulled down immediately and the temple authorities are going to immediately demolish the same and reconstruct thereafter. In view thereof, when notices have been repeatedly served on the petitioner and he has not informed about the death of his father, the petitioner cannot now take advantage of the fact that the order of eviction is in the name of a dead person.

¶35

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side

¶36

and perused the material records of the case.

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.49627 of 2025

¶40

As far as the order of eviction is concerned, the petition before

¶41

the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) Department, Vellore, was filed in the year 2011, by which time, the petitioner’s father, Krishnamaraj , had died. Therefore, those proceedings would be null and void. In the normal circumstances, had the petitioner been in possession, an opportunity can be given to the respondent authorities to give fresh notice and conduct an enquiry afresh. However, in this case, possession has already been taken. Now, repossession has to be ordered. But, it can also be seen that the building is in an extreme dilapidated condition and it is also stated that the roof is damaged and the timber rafters are rotten and worn out and the roof is also leaky. The masonry has already become fissured and worn out. The joineries including doors and windows are in bad condition and cracked and worn out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny the extreme old condition of the building. Putting the petitioner back in possession will be dangerous for his own life.

¶42