2. The petitioner has stated that her father Duraisamy Mudaliyar. purchased the superstructure on from Smt.

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Tuesday the 7 th day of February Two thousand and Eighteen. Present: Tmt.R.Jaya, I.A.S., Commissioner. R.P.298/2017 D2 Between 1.Duraisamy Mudaliar(Deceased) 2.D.Saraswathi...Petitioner And 1. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn.Department, Chennai. 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Gangadeeswarar temple...respondents Purasaiwalkam, Chennai -84. In the matter of Arulmigu Gangadeeswarar temple, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai -84. The Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.EAdmn.Department, Chennai in Pro.Rc.No.3133/2009 passed u/s 78 of the act. Order in D.Dis. R.P.No.298/2017/ D2 dated: The above Revision petition came up for hearing before me on in the presence of Thiru.B.Ullasavelan, counsel for the petitioner, Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Upon hearing their arguments and having perused the connected records the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed: - ORDER The above Revision Petition was filed u/s.21 of the Act against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E Admn.Department, Chennai in Pro.Rc.No.3133/2009 passed u/s 78 of the act. 2. The petitioner has stated that her father Duraisamy Mudaliyar purchased the superstructure on from Smt.Silakammal alias Muniyammal, wife of Thirumalai Naidu. Subsequently he renovated the

2 2 property and was living there with his family. The Petitioner's father obtained electricity connection and metro water and sewerage connection. Initially the monthly rent was Rs.2/-, subsequently the land rent was increased to Rs.14/-. The 2 nd respondent through his letter dated intimated the Petitioner s father about the fair rent increase of Rs.2,330/- from and again increase the fair rent by 33% from and also asked to pay rental arrears of Rs.1,77,226/-. The Petitioner s father objected the new fair rent and also requested the 2 nd respondent to follow G.O.Ms.No.298 dated and the Commissioner s, circular dated , but there was no response from the 2 nd respondent, Her family members are living in the suit premises for more than 80 years. The notice dated and of the 2 nd respondent were not served on the Petitioner. Based on that notice the 1 st respondent submitted a report in Na.Ka.No.495 of 2009/A1 dated without inspecting the property and without making any enquiry to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department. Based on that report Joint Commissioner initiated proceedings in Na.Da.Na.Ka.No.3133/2009/E1 dated As the termination notice dated was not served on him, the temple cannot called the Petitioner as encroacher. The proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner dated was barred by limitation. The Joint Commissioner who initiated proceedings in 2009 cannot pass order on without valid reason for the delay. In spite of informing the 2 nd respondent about the death of Duraisamy Mudaliyar he has not taken any initiative to transfer the lease of the 2 nd respondent land in the

3 3 name of the Petitioner but mechanically issuing the land rent receipt in the name of the Revision Petitioner s father for the past 20 years. Due to the wrong calculation the arrears of rent accumulated to Rs.1,80,159/-, if the Government orders were implemented properly the Petitioner will have no due to be pay to the 2 nd respondent temple. When the proceedings before the Joint Commissioner is pending the 2 nd respondent sent a notice dated stating that under section 34-A of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, rent has been re-fixed at Rs.10,465/- per month. Based on market and guideline value of the land as Rs.5,130/- per sq.ft. for which the Petitioner sent an objection on She has not received any reply till date and also not called for any enquiry. Meanwhile the State Government reduced the guideline value by 33%, hence the fair rent refixed by the 2 nd respondent cannot be made as per the old guideline value. The Revision Petitioner is always willing to pay 15% increase in land rent for every 3 years. Considering the age of the Petitioner s building, amenities available in the building and long association of the Petitioner s family with the 2 nd respondent temple were not considered before increasing the land rent. 3. In the counter affidavit the 2 nd respondent has stated that a portion of land comprised in Survey No.1522, admeasuring to an extent of 2040 sq.ft bearing door No.15, Parthasarathi Mudali street, Purasaiwalkam Chennai was originally leased out to one late Duraisami Mudaliar, the father of the 2 nd petitioner on the basis of site rent of Rs.14/- P.M initially. Thereafter the fair rent was fixed at Rs.2330/- P.M. from as per G.O.353, later the fair

4 4 rent was re fixed to the property at Rs.1165/- with effect from and 15% periodical increase was effected for every three years as per G.O.456. Then, with effect from , the rent to the above premise was revised at Rs.2038/-P.M. Even after proper intimation and notices, the revision petitioner was not ready and did not come forward to remit the arrears of rent. Hence the temple issued termination notice dated determining the tenancy. The Joint Commissioner, Chennai after having satisfied prima facie, issued show cause notice dated to the respondent for which there was no response from the revision petitioner. Thereafter subsequent notices dated , , , , , , , and finally in respect of the property had also been issued by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, demanding the revision petitioner to attend for personal enquiry. On , , & the enquiries were conducted and in spite of the opportunities offered the revision petitioner did not attend the enquiry on Therefore the respondents were set ex-parte. Since though she claimed that she is the daughter of the original tenant, the petitioner has not taken any steps to regularize her as tenant in the place of the original tenant by producing relevant documents to establish her claim, besides remitting the arrears of rent accrued till date. Further by virtue of the T.N. amended Act of 2/1996, she cannot inherit the tenancy automatically and she has no privity of contract with the land lord. At present the accumulated arrears in respect of the property is Rs.1,60,615/-.

5 5 4. I heard Thiru.B.Ullasavelan, counsel for the petitioner, Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, counsel for the 2 nd respondent and perused the relevant records. 5. The suit property measuring about 2040 sq.ft was originally leased out to one Duraisamy Mudaliar. The temple had fixed the fair rent in accordance with the guidelines issued in various Government Orders and duly communicated to the tenant. As he had failed to pay the revised rent, the tenancy was terminated with effect from and proceedings u/s.78 was initiated in the year 2009 against the original tenant and also 2 nd petitioner herein. The Joint Commissioner has afforded several opportunity to settle the arrears but she has failed to settle the arrears. Hence, the Joint Commissioner has ordered to evict her from the suit property. 6. Though the original tenant Thiru.Duraisamy Mudaliar died in on the same was not informed to the temple. Thereafter, the petitioner who is daughter of the original tenant is occupying the property without entering into any valid lease agreement with the temple. The temple authorities were permitted to effect name transfer of tenancy right till and temple administration had also issued public notice in newspapers in this regard. But the petitioner never approached the temple transfer the tenancy right in her favour. She was also irregular in payment of rent. As no lease subsists between the petitioner and the temple in a manner known to law, her possession amounts to encroachment as contemplated

6 6 u/s.78 of the Act. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner has rightly ordered to evict her from the suit property. 7. However, the petitioner has paid the part of the arrears during the pendency of this Revision Petition and prays 6 months time to settle the arrears. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is living in the suit premises along with her brothers and sisters and taking care of all of them from her meager monthly income. As the property is used as residence by the petitioner s family for very long time, it is decided to permit the petitioner to occupy the property in view of the long enjoyment of the property by their family. Accordingly the petitioner is hereby regularized as tenant subject to the following conditions:- (i). She should settle the outstanding arrears as on date within 6 months on 6 equal monthly installments. She should give 6 numbers of post dated cheques within a week from the date of receipt of this order. All the arrear payments through post dated cheques should be completed on or before (ii) She should in future pay the fair rent to be fixed by the temple in accordance with the Sec 34A of the Act. (iii) She should pay the monthly rent on or before 5 th of every month. Default in this regard for a period of more than 2 months shall make the petitioner liable for forthwith termination of her tenancy, consequent eviction without further notice.

7 7 (iv) She should not make any additions or alterations in the existing structure without permission of the competent authority. (v) She should not sub-let the property. (vi) The tenancy shall be valid only as long as it is used as residence for the petitioners and her immediate family. Any change of usage and/or addition of commercial interests shall render the tenancy void and consequent action of eviction shall ensure. (vii) The tenancy shall be valid for not more than 3 years or till such time as the land is not required for use of the temple for its own purposes/public purpose whichever is earlier. If the petitioner fails to comply with the above conditions, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai shall be given effect. The Revision Petition is hereby disposed of with the above directions. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- R.Jaya Commissioner Superintendent To 1. The Petitioners through M/s.B.Ullasavelan, Advocate, No.324, New Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai The 2 nd respondent through Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, Advocate, M-188, 9th Cross Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai Copy to:- 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Department, Chennai. (along with file in Pro.Rc.No.3133/2009) (BY RPAD) 4. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department, Chennai 5-6)Extra.