M.Srinivasan v. Renuka Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.04.2022 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.SUNDAR Contempt Petition No.177 of 2022 M.Srinivasan, No.1, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 ... Petitioner vs.

1.Renuka Devi, Joint Commissioner II, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 34.

2.A.Gajapaathy, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Jayarama Chetty Street, Sri Kadubadi Chinnamman Thirukoil, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 06.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.10286 of 2021. For Petitioner ..

Mr.T.M.Mano For Respondents ..

Mr.NRR. Arun Natarajan, Spl. Govt. Pleader (H.R. & C.E.) for R1 Ms.G.Sumitra for R2

ORDER

Captioned contempt petition filed by the petitioner is predicated on a allegation that order dated 06.10.2021 made in W.P. No.10286 of 2021 and

W.M.P.No.10883 of 2021 has been violated inter-alia owing to issue of a notice dated 27.11.2021 by the second respondent in captioned contempt petition.

2. Mr.T.M.Mano, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner, Mr.NRR. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department) for first respondent and Ms.G.Sumitra, learned counsel for second respondent are before this Court.

3. At the outset, it is deemed appropriate to record the stated position of all the aforementioned counsel i.e., that aforementioned order dated 06.10.2021 made by me in W.P. No.10286 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.10883 of 2021 thereat has not been carried in appeal and has been given legal quietus. In other words, 'order dated 06.10.2021 made by me in W.P. No.10286 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.10883 of 2021 thereat' (hereinafter 'said order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has attained finality is the common say of all counsel before me and said order reads as follows: Mr.K.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for sole writ petitioner, Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for third respondent are before this Court.

2. In the captioned writ petition, a 'communication dated 29.03.2021 from the third respondent to the writ petitioner'

(hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been assailed i.e., called in question.

3. Before I advert to the impugned order, it is necessary to mention that subject matter of captioned writ petition is lease of a small shop by a temple i.e., 'Arulmighu Kadumbadi Chinnamman Thirukkoil at No.53, Jayaram Chetty Street, West Saidapet, Chennai - 15' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity) to the writ petitioner. To be noted, said temple is governed by 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

4. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the demised property is a small shop constituted by land and superstructure. This shall hereinafter be referred to as 'demised shop' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the impugned order demands rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month on and from 01.07.2016 i.e., fasli 1426 and this is impermissible as there is a history, according to learned counsel for writ petitioner, originally the rent was Rs.650/- per mensem, but after some discussions, it was enhanced to Rs.3000/- per month and he is already depositing the same on and from 18.03.2021 in Bank account of said temple. This is subject to some disputation or disagreement by learned counsel for third respondent. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to not to embark upon this factual disputation, more so in a writ petition. Another reason

for refraining from embarking upon this factual disputation is, captioned writ petition can be disposed of by making a simple order without getting into those disputations or disagreements.

5. There is no disputation or disagreement that the writ petitioner is a lessee under said temple qua demised shop. There is also no disputation or disagreement that demised shop being property belonging to said temple, will stand governed by TN HR & CE Act. Therefore, the mechanism / methodology statutorily prescribed in TN HR & CE Act will have to be applied for computing and deciding the lease rent qua demised shop. This methodology and mechanism is adumbrated in Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act which kicked in on and from 10.05.2003. Learned counsel for writ petitioner adverting to M.Gurusamy Nadar's case [M.Gurusamy Nadar Vs.

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department] being an order made by this Court and reported in 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167 and more particularly paragraph 17 thereat submits that lease rent cannot be fixed prior to 10.05.2003.

6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for writ petitioner also submits that writ petitioner has been depositing rent qua demised shop at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month on and from 18.03.2021 and this Court is informed that deposit is in the bank account of said temple. Learned counsel for third respondent submits that this requires to be verified as he does not have instructions readily on hand on the same. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect as learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, very fairly submits that writ

petitioner will pay rent for demised shop at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month (pay to said temple) on and from 18.03.2021 after adjustments qua payments said to have been already deposited. Obviously, lease rent has to be fixed for demised shop in accordance with Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act. The respondents and all others concerned will do well to commence and conclude the exercise of fixation of lease rent qua demised shop in accordance with Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act keeping in mind M.Gurusamy Nadar's case, as expeditiously as the business of the respondents would permit and in any event within three months from today i.e., on or before 06.01.2022.

7. Captioned writ petition is disposed of by making the aforementioned simple order. In the light of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for writ petitioner (on instructions) that the demised shop consists of land and superstructure (notwithstanding a new superstructure being put up by the writ petitioner with consent of said temple) any documentation that is required for formalizing this position i.e., land and superstructure qua demised shop belonging to said temple shall also be completed. Consequently, connected WMPs are also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. A scanned reproduction of aforementioned notice dated 27.11.2021 issued by the second respondent which is the trigger (as alluded to supra in the opening paragraph of this order) for the captioned contempt petition is as follows:

5. From the submissions made today, it came to light that there was some difficulty with regard to the cut-off date qua retrospectivity for the fixation of lease rent under Section 34-A of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Suffice to say that M.Gurusamy Nadar principle i.e., ratio in M.Gurusamy Nadar Vs. Commissioner, HR & CE Department (2018 (3) MWN (Civil)

167) is that there cannot be fixation of lease rent with retrospective effect prior to 10.05.2003 being the date on which Section 34-A of TN HR & CE Act kicked in and it is not necessary to delve into this aspect of the matter or dilate further on this owing to the trajectory the matter has taken today.

6. This brings me back to the trajectory the captioned matter has taken today.

7. Learned State counsel and learned private counsel for second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'temple counsel' for the sake of convenience and clarity) submit on instructions that aforementioned 27.11.2021 notice referred to supra would not be pursued, it stands withdrawn (without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent to fix lease rent in accordance with Section 34A of TN HR & CE Act) and instead a fresh notice with working sheet and other necessary particulars as per Angala Parameswari principle being ratio laid down by a Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Adimanaiveal House Owners Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to

Government reported in 2009 (3) Law Weekly 728: 2009 (6) CTC 512 would be issued for fixation of lease rent with effect from Fasli 1426. To be noted, Fasli 1426 translates to 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2017 in the Gregorian/English calendar (for conversion No.590 is added to the Fasli).

8. Though this is a contempt petition, I remind myself of parentis locus qua temple (idol being minor) besides custodia legis qua temple properties vide A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors case reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482 and make an observation that the respondents will do well to issue notice afresh to the writ petitioner/petitioner in captioned contempt petition as expeditiously as their business would permit and in any event within one month from today i.e., on or before 20.05.2022 from thereon and thereafter, Section 34-A proceedings will take its due course.

9. Though obvious, for the purpose of specificity, it is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner as well as 'Arulmighu Kadumbadi Chinnammam Thirukkoil at No.53, Jayaram Chetty Street, West Saidapet, Chennai - 15' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity) qua fixation of lease rent under Section 34-A of TN HRCE Act are preserved. Likewise, as the writ petitioner undisputedly is a land lessee (superstructure having been put up by the writ petitioner) all other modalities available for formalising the jural relationship between said

temple and writ petitioner can also proceed without this order impeding this process. To be noted, this has already been observed in paragraph 7 of my order dated 06.10.2021 in W.P. No.10286 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.10883 of 2021 thereat (out of which this contempt arises).

10. Though Rule (Rule of contempt) has not been issued, it is made clear that both respondents stand purged of contempt in the captioned matter and the captioned contempt petition is disposed of as closed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) mmi //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

GS/06/06/2022 To The Joint Commissioner II, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.