BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Wednesday the 17 th day of October, Two thousand and Eighteen. Present:Thiru.T.K.Ramachandran, I.A.S., Principal Secretary /Commissioner R.P.27/2018 D2 Between Jayaseelan...Petitioner And 1. The Joint Commissioner H.R&C.E.,Admn Department, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner H.R&C.E.,Admn Department, Chennai. 3. The Executive officer, Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Temple, Padi, Chennai - 50....Respondents In the matter of Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Temple, Padi, Chennai. Petition filed to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the Revision Petition and 286 days in re-presenting 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 20.02.2017 of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn Department, Chennai in Pro.Rc.No. 5097/2009 passed u/s 78 of the act. Order in R.P.No.27/2018 D2 dated:17.10.2018 The above Revision petition came up for final hearing before me on 01.10.2018 in the presence of Thiru.C.Dharmaraj Counsel for the petitioner. Upon hearing his 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 petition was filed u/s.21 of the Act challenging the order dated.20.02.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai.
2 2. The petitioner has stated the he is living in the above said property along with his family for more than 40 years. The land measuring 3200 sq.ft. belonging to the Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukoil, Padi, Chennai 600 050. in which executed Registered lease deed to and infavour of petitioner by virtue of Deed dated 24.01.1984 in doc. No.2483/1984 SRO Anna Nagar and he was permitted to occupy and construct the superstructure in the said land subsequently he enjoyed the lease hold rights. From then onwards he has been paying rent regularly to the 3 rd respondent temple and paying the property tax in his name and also paying regularly the increased rent. On 19.12.2003 the 3 rd respondent had issued notice to the petitioner revising the rent from Rs.2890/- was 2001. The petitioner sent his objections on 17.12.2003 to the all respondents. But it was not considered by the said authorities. On 14.03.2008, the 3 rd respondent had again issued notice to the petitioner revised the rent to the said premises based on the report of the fixation of fair rent committee passed as per G.O.456. The said the 3 rd respondent fixed the tent to premises at Rs.1915/- per month and calculated as arrears of rent as Rs.1,68,597/-. The 1 st respondent has issued show cause notice. Immediately on 19.11.2009 the petitioner sent his reply to the 1 st respondent on 15.12.2010 but the 1 st respondent did not considered the earlier representation. On 28.05.2016, after 6 years, again sent show clause notice to the petitioner to appear on 08.06.2016. In the meanwhile the petitioner had paid entire arrears and informed the same to the Joint Commissioner on 08.06.2016. Subsequently on 16.11.2016 the petitioner sent reminder. But without verifying the above payment and without receiving final report from the 3 rd respondent temple, the 1 st respondent has passed the said impugned order.
3 3. In the Counter Affidavit, the 3 rd respondent has stated that the said temple owns landed properties in various survey numbers in and around the area of Padi. Out of the same, a portion of land comprised in Survey No.218/2 admeasuring 3200 sq.ft. bearing door No.34 Jegathambigai Street, Thiruvalleeswar Nagar, Chennai was leased out to one Jeyaseelan for a monthly rent of Rs.10/- and latter the fair rent was fixed with effect from 01.11.2001 based on the G.Os.353, 456 and 298/2010. The present rent as on the date of 01.07.2007 was Rs.1915/- per month. The revision petitioner was irregular and chronic defaulter and was not ready to pay the old arrears of Rs.1,68,597/- up to 28.02.2008. As per the resolution passed by the Hereditary Trustee the lease was terminated with effect from 08.10.2008 and intimated to the revision petitioner vide notice dated `06.09.2008. On 08.06.2016 the revision petitioner attended the enquiry and the Joint Commissioner directed the revision petitioner to remit the accrued arrears Rs.69,424/- on or before 24.06.2016 and posted the matter for orders on 24.06.2016, but on that date only the executive officer the 3 rd respondent attended the enquiry and informed that still a sum of Rs.48314 was left as arrears and there was no response from the revision petitioner. Based on the statement given by the 3 rd respondent, the 1 st respondent passed the impugned order declaring the revision petitioner as an encroacher under Section 78 of the TH HR&CE Act, inter alia directing the revision petitioner to handover the possession of the demisted property to the 3 rd respondent temple within 15 days from the date of order. He has now remitted the rental arrears up to 28.02.2018 after the impugned order has been passed on 31.10.2016. The rent was revised at Rs.10,000/- per month again with effect from 01.07.2016 and the same was intimated vide notice dated 17.10.2017 and accordingly, the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is left
4 unpaid up to 28.02.2018. In respect of the new fixation the revision petitioner has sent in-appropriate objections to the 3 rd respondent directly on 08.11.2017 without exercising his option of filing appeal under Section 34 (A) (3) of the TN HR&CE Act. 4. The above Revision petition came up for from hearing on 17.09.2018 and 01.10.2018. The petitioner and his counsel were called absent on both hearings. I heard Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, counsel for the 3 rd respondent and perused the relevant records. 5. The land measuring about 3200 sq.ft belonging to the above temple was originally leased out to the petitioner. The temple has fixed the fair rent at Rs.1915/- with effect from 01.11.2001 and sent notice to the 1 st petitioner. As no appeal was filed against the fair rent, it attained finality. As he had failed to pay the fair rent along with the arrears, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 02.10.2008 and the proceedings u/s.78 was initiated in the year 2009. The proceedings u/s.78 was concluded in the year 2016. During the pendency of the above said proceedings, the Joint Commissioner had afforded several opportunities to the petitioner to settle the arrears. But the petitioner not appeared before the Joint Commissioner and also failed to pay the arrears as directed by the Joint Commissioner. He has settled the old arrears after passing of the impugned order only. After termination of the lease of the original tenant, the possession of the petitioner is unlawful and in turn amounts to encroachment as contemplated u/s.78 of the Act. Accordingly the Joint Commissioner has rightly ordered eviction of the petitioner from the suit property.
5 6. The suit property is endowed for the maintenance of the suit temple. The temple is depending on the income derived from the said property for the performance of daily poojas, festivals, payment of salary to the employees, providing basic amenities to the devotees and to carry out periodical maintenance works. The expenditure towards the above said items have been increased. Further, the value of the land also increased over the years. Hence, the rent should be revised periodically. As per Sec 34A of the Act, the rent is to be fixed once in three years taking into account the prevailing market rental value in the said locality. The suit property is situated in one of the prime localities of Chennai city. The rent fixed by the temple is very low compared to the prevailing market rental value in the said locality. The property has potential to generate more income if the same is leased out in public auction and the temple will get more income. 7. Further, this revision petition was filed against the eviction order passed u/s 78 of the Act. In the eviction proceedings, the petitioner cannot dispute the fixation of fair rent as they have failed to challenge the same as provided under the Act. As a tenant it is the duty of the petitioner to remit the rent every month and it should not be necessary for the temple to keep insisting them for payment of rent for each and every month. Further if the rent fixed by the temple u/s 34(A) of the Act is not affordable by the petitioner, he should quit the property to enable the temple to get maximum income from the said property. 8. During the enquiry on 26.06.2018 this forum has directed the petitioners to pay the entire arrears of Rs.1,83,000/-(up to June 2018) before within 2 weeks. Thereafter, the above case came up for hearing on 17.09.2018 and 01.10.2018. But neither did the
6 petitioner pay the arrears as directed by this forum nor appeared for enquiry. This clearly shows his mindset. The petitioner is irregular in payment of rent. The temple cannot run after the tenant every time to collect the rent and spent its funds to defend the litigation initiated by the tenants. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons stated supra, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai and it is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2017 is hereby confirmed and revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- T.K.Ramachandran Principal Secretary /Commissioner Superintendent To 1. The Petitioner through M/s.G.Devi, Advocate, No.346/161, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai -01. 2. The 3 rd Respondent through Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, Advocate, M-188, 9 th Cross street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai -41. Copy to 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept., Chennai. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept., Chennai. 5. Extra.