1 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Monday the 20 th day of August, Two thousand and Eighteen. Present: Tmt.R.Jaya, I.A.S., Commissioner. R.P.337 to 339/2017 D2 Between 1.P.Thiruvengadam Chettiar (Deceased) 2.P.T.Lakshmipathy 3.B.Kanchanamala 4.P.Sathyanarayanan And 1. The Joint Commissioner HR&CE Department, Chennai. 2. The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Adhipureeswarar and Adhikesava Perumal Temple, Chindadripet, Chennai -02....Petitioner in R.P.No.337/2017 Petitioner in R.P.No.338/2017...Petitioner in R.P.No.339/2017...Respondents. In the matter of Arulmighu Adhipureeswarar and Adhikesava Perumal Temple, Chindadripet, Chennai -02 The Revision petitions filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order dated 24.03.2017 of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn Department, Chennai in Pro.Rc.no.14595/2008 passed Under Section 78 of the Act. Common Order in D.Dis.R.P.337 to 339/2017 D2 dated:20.08.2018 The above Revision petitions came up for final hearing before me on 03.4.2018 in the presence of M/s.B.Ullasa Velan, Counsel for the petitioners and M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates, counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Upon hearing their arguments and having perused the connected records and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:- ORDER The above revision petitions filed u/s.21 of the Act against the order dated 24.3.2017 of the Joint Commissioner, Chennai passed u/s78 of the Act.
2 2. The petitioners have stated that late P.Thiruvengadam Chettiar was given lease hold right of vacant land belonging to the 2 nd respondent temple in the year 1940. Subsequently with the permission of then Trustees of the 2 nd respondent temple he applied for planning and building permission and constructed a building on the vacant land. The 2 nd petitioner s father obtained Electricity Connection and Metro Water and Sewerage Connection and was also paying property tax to Chennai Corporation. Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam Chettiyar spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for construction and maintenance of the original super structure. Initially the monthly rent was Rs.58/-. On 04.06.2007 the 2 nd petitioner received a communication from the 2 nd respondent temple stating that fair rent was fixed from 01.11.2001 as per G.Ms.No.353 as Rs.3,600/- per month and the 2 nd respondent also demanded arrears of fair rent upto 01.11.2007 as Rs.67,298/- for the entire area of 3545 sq.ft. The superstructure and lease hold right were partitioned among the legal heirs of late P.Thiruvengadam Chettiar and some portion of the superstructure was sold and reconstructed. New fair rent was fixed abnormally high by the 2 nd respondent without any notice to the petitioners. The 2 nd respondent without any intimation increased the fair rent for the petition land and sent a notice on 28.07.2008 claiming arrears of fair rent of Rs.3,12,786/- and also demanded fair rent of Rs.4,765/- per month. Immediately petitioner objected against the fair rent. The respondent without proper verification and enquiry is claiming fair rent retrospectively from 2001 in 2008. The entire petition premises is occupied by the petitioner s family whereas the 2 nd respondent Executive
3 Officer fixed the fair rent on the basis of commercial classification for the building. As per G.O.Ms.No.298 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department dated 20.07.2010 and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Circular dated 03.08.2010 the petitioners have to pay fair rent only from 01.07.2007 whereas the 2 nd respondent Executive Officer is claiming the arrears of fair rent from 2001 which is against the Commissioner, HR&CE s Circular dated 03.08.2010. He has not received termination notice dated 10.10.2008. He was not furnished with reports of the 2 nd and 1 st respondents. The Joint Commissioner mechanically initiated proceedings on 16.12.2008 and completed the proceedings only on 24.03.2017. When the petitioner appeared before the Joint Commissioner on 12.8.2016 he was asked to pay Rs.7,92,646/- on or before 09.09.2016. The petitioner informed the Joint Commissioner that the properties were sold to different persons and gave their names to him and that the lease hold right and the superstructure were partitioned in 1992. The Joint Commissioner passed an order on 24.03.2017 without following natural justice and directed the petitioner and other owners to vacate the premises within 15 days. In spite of the fact that the death of P.Thiruvengadam Chettiyar was intimated and name transfer requested by his legal heirs no action was taken for the past 24 years. The Joint Commissioner s proceedings were wrongly initiated on Thiruvengadam Pillai instead of P.Thiruvengadam Chettiyar and in spite of informing previous Executive Officers to rectify this defect, no action was taken by the Executive Officer; hence it has to be set aside.
4 3. In the counter affidavit the respondent temple has stated that the name of the tenant as per the records of the temple in Miscellaneous Demand Register is P.Thiruvengadam Pillai, but however, since there is no dispute in respect of the actual name and the fact that the petitioners are his sons, there is effectively no dispute regarding the identity of the tenant. Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam Pillai was given a piece of land on rent and he was in occupation of the same for many years. If the petitioner was aggrieved by fixation of fair rent it was open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the H.R&C.E Act after complying with the statutory condition of pre deposit of the rent. A perusal of the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner would show that the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Act have been complied with. The petitioner has never been recognized as a tenant to enable him to receive the same. The petitioner is not a recognized tenant and therefore cannot claim that fair rent should be fixed. Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam Pillai is the tenant in respect of the property for which the monthly rent is Rs.6,305/- as on 30.6.2016. The arrears of rent was Rs.8,10,846/- and the monthly rent from 01.07.2016 was proposed to be fixed at Rs.53,190/- per month. A sum of Rs.18,700/- was paid which was adjusted in the name of the original tenant, Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam Pillai, leaving behind a balance of Rs.7,92,146/- as on 30.6.2016 and the subsequent rents. The petitioner cannot claim that rents have been paid regularly. The petitioner has appeared before the Joint commissioner on various dates. The contention that the property has been sold to different persons after partition will not bind
5 the temple in any manner and as per the records of the temple, it is P.Thiruvengadam Pillai who is the tenant. It is an admitted fact that the tenancy has been terminated, no other issue need be looked into by the Joint Commissioner and the order passed by the Joint Commissioner is perfectly valid since there is no valid lease in favour of the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner is not the original tenant and therefore cannot as a matter of right seek for fixation of fair rent. 4. I heard Thiru.B.Ullasa Velan, counsel for the petitioners, M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates, counsel for the 2 nd respondent and perused the relevant records. 5. The suit property measuring about 3545 sq.ft. was originally leased out to the petitioners father Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam. The fair rent was fixed in accordance with law and communicated to him vide notice dated 04.6.2003. Since he had failed to pay the arrears, the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 10.10.2008. Thereafter proceeding u/s.78 was initiated against him. 6. In the revision petition, the petitioners had stated that their father died on 07.8.1993, but the same was not intimated to the temple. It was admitted by the petitioners that the fair rent fixation notice and termination notice were received by them. But no appeal was preferred against the said notice. Hence, they cannot dispute the fair rent fixation in the eviction proceedings.
6 7. Further, the petitioners were impleaded in the proceedings u/s.78 and enquiry notice was sent to them by the Joint Commissioner. They had also appeared before the Joint Commissioner for enquiry. The Joint Commissioner has directed the petitioners to settle the entire arrears, but they had failed to pay the entire arrears. Hence, the Joint Commissioner has ordered to evict the petitioners from the suit property. 8. However, during the course of enquiry in the above revision petitions, the petitioners were directed to pay the entire dues. Accordingly, they have collectively settled the entire arrears. Hence, the opinion of the temple was sought regarding regularization of possession of the petitioners. The temple has no objection for regularizing the petitioners possession, if they agreed to pay the revised rent and continue to pay the revised rent whenever due in future. 9. The suit property is used for residential purpose by the petitioners. Considering their long enjoyment, it is decided to permit them to occupy the property as tenants subject to the following conditions:- I. The respondent temple is directed to fix the fair rent in accordance with Section 34(A) of the Act for the area actually occupied by each petitioners including the common usage area. II. They should pay the fair rent fixed by the temple as monthly rent towards use and occupation of the property with an annual enhancement at the rate of 5% per annum. III. They should pay 10 months rent as advance to safeguard the
7 temple from any default in payment of rent in future. IV. They 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 his tenancy, consequent eviction and forfeiture of the advance without further notice. V. They should not make any additions or alterations in the existing structure without permission of the competent authority. VI. They should not sub-let the property. VII. The tenancy shall be valid only as long as it is used as residence for the petitioners and their immediate family. Any change of usage and/or addition of commercial interests shall render the tenancy void and consequent action of eviction shall ensure. VIII. 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 petitioners failed to comply with above conditions, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai shall be given effect. The revision petitions are hereby disposed of with above directions. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- R.Jaya Commissioner Superintendent To 1. The Petitioner through M/s.B.Ullasavelan, Advocate, No.324, New Addl.Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104. 2. The 2 nd Respondent through M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates, No.86, Law Chamber, High Court Building, Chennai-104.
Copy to 3. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn.Department, Chennai. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Department, Chennai. 5. Extra. 8