The court upheld the statutory requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal and found that the lessees were given an opportunity to raise objections before the lease rent was fixed, addressing the lack of opportunity.

Common Order: (Prabha Sridevan, J.)

The writ appeal and writ petition are heard together. The lessees are mainly aggrieved that Section 34 A of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 as it reads now provides for fixing the rent without giving them a hearing and they are also aggrieved by requirement of pre-deposit for filing the appeal.

2. Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents made their submissions. The State has issued the circular dated 2. 2009 to show that instructions have been issued to the authorities to give an opportunity to the tenants before the rent is finally fixed. This has been placed before us.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:-

The members of the Appellant Association in the Writ Appeal and the petitioner in the

W.P. are tenants of Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami temple. According to them, they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in occupation of the temple lands for several decades. Originally the lease rent was 50 paise per half ground. They are the owners of the superstructures. In 1991, the lease rent was enhanced to a mere Rs.25/- per month. The members objected even to that. The temple acceding to their objections, reduced the rent to a pitiful sum of Rs. 5/-per month. According to the petitioners they have been paying this amount without fail. On 14. 2005, the Joint Commissioner fixed the fair rent and the Executive Officer communicated the decision to the lessees in 2005. The liability to pay the fair rent so fixed came into effect from 11. 2001. The lessees were called upon to pay the arrears of rent within 15 days of receipt of the letter. The lessees were also informed that if they were aggrieved they could file an appeal under Section 34-A of the HR & CE Act. One of the members filed an appeal. It was returned for want of pre-deposit. Immediately the Association filed W.P.25992/2005 for a declaration that S.34-A(3) of the Act is violative of Article 14 and for a direction to the respondents to entertain the appeal without insisting on the pre-deposit.

4. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition on the ground that the challenge to the condition of pre-deposit was unsustainable. Therefore this appeal has been filed.

5. W.P.1611/2008 has been filed by a single lessee on the ground that Section 34-A (2) does not afford opportunity to the lessees before fixing the rent and therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

6. Earlier decisions have been rendered by this Court on identical or similar issues. They are referred to in the order passed in a batch of writ petitions in writ petition Nos.8831/2003 etc., dated 29-7-2008 in N.V.Krishnan Vs. The Special Commissioner cum Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowment Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034 and others. They are referred to hereunder.

(i). In ARULMIGHU MEENAKSHI SUNDARESWARAR KOIL KADAIKARANGAL SANGAM, MADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND TWO OTHERS reported in 2000 (1) CTC 471, wherein the question for consideration was whether the fixation of fair rent based on the market value and cost of building was justified and whether the individuals can invoke the writ jurisdiction for challenging such fixation. The learned Judge after referring to the contentions raised therein, in paragraph-12, has observed as follows:-

"12. .... The contention that they have enhanced the rent arbitrarily therefore cannot be sustained. In any event, if there is any specific objection as to the fixation of the rental value, that will be a question of disputed fact, for which the petitioners have got an effective remedy under Section 21 of the Act. As a matter of fact, under similar circumstances, as against the enhancement of the rent, this Court in W.P.No.194563 of 1999, dismissed the writ petition with liberty to move the appellate authority under Section 21. In this case also, based on the guidelin