S.Saddiq Ali, v. The Joint Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.4578 of 2018 and WMP.No.5629 of 2018 S.Saddiq Ali S/o.A.Sirajuddin .. Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.
The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.
The Executive Officer Arulmighu Padaleeswarar Temple Thirupathiripuliyur Cuddalore District.
4.
T.E.Varadharajan S/o.Ethirajan .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to recognize the petitioner as a tenant in respect of the Shop No.88E, Lawrance Road, Cuddalore, based on the representation dated 19.12.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
O R D E R
Heard Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to recognize him as a tenant in respect of the Shop No.88E, Lawrance Road, Cuddalore, based on his
representation dated 19.12.2016.
3. Admittedly, the subject matter property belongs to the third respondent Temple. It is claimed by the petitioner that the fourth respondent was recognized as a tenant by the third respondent in respect of the subject matter property, from whom the petitioner has taken the premises for rent and doing the business for the past 30 years. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner has to be recognized as a tenant in respect of the subject matter property and therefore, the representation made by him on 19.12.2016 has to be considered by the respondents 1 to 3.
4. I do not think that the petitioner is having any right or justification in seeking tenancy right over the subject matter property, admittedly, when he was not put into possession of the respondent temple as a tenant. Merely, because the fourth respondent allowed the petitioner to take the property on lease, that too, under his tenancy, that will not bind the temple and consequently, allow the petitioner to remain in the subject matter property as a tenant. In fact the temple has issued a notice as early as on 06.10.2016, calling upon the petitioner to vacate the subject matter premises, by specifically claiming that he is an encroacher and consequently, not entitled to be in possession of the subject matter premises. When such being the factual position, I do not think that the present claim made by the petitioner can be considered. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.
The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.
The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.
The Executive Officer Arulmighu Padaleeswarar Temple Thirupathiripuliyur Cuddalore District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.15955 +1cc to Mr.M.Selvam Advocate SR.No.15952 W.P.No.4578 of 2018 SDR 12.03.2018