Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3332
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K. VASUKI
N.S. Ramachandra Iyer & Others
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos. 26843 to 26846 of 2009 & M.P. Nos. 1+1+2+2+2+3+3 of 2009 & 1+1 f 2010
Decided on : 09-08-2010
For the Petitioners:C. Prakasam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T. Chandrasekaran, Spl. G.P. for HR & CE.
The judgment establishes the importance of prompt compliance with statutory obligations, particularly in the context of eviction proceedings under the HR&CE Act.
Headnote:
Eviction - HR&CE Act - Section 78, Section 79 - The judgment discusses the eviction proceedings initiated under Sections 78 and 79 of the HR&CE Act against the petitioners who were occupying a vacant site belonging to a temple. The court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the demand for payment of arrears, leading to the temple authorities treating them as encroachers and initiating eviction proceedings. The court held that the petitioners' conduct, failure to challenge the eviction notices, and lack of prompt payment of arrears disentitled them to relief. The judgment highlights the application of Sections 78 and 79 of the HR&CE Act in eviction proceedings and the significance of prompt compliance with statutory obligations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were occupying a vacant site belonging to a temple as lessees. The temple authorities initiated eviction proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the HR&CE Act due to the petitioners' failure to pay arrears of land rent at the revised rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' conduct, failure to challenge eviction notices, and lack of prompt payment of arrears disentitled them to relief. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any indulgence and dismissed all the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the eviction proceedings initiated under Sections 78 and 79 of the HR&CE Act and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief based on their conduct and compliance with statutory obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' failure to challenge eviction notices, lack of prompt payment of arrears, and conduct disentitled them to relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory obligations and the consequences of failing to do so in eviction proceedings.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
1. All the four writ petitions 26843 to 26846 of 2009 are filed for issuing writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the common order passed by the first respondent on 012. 2009 in revision petitions No.18, 19, 20 and 21/2007-D2 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to hand over the vacant site in question. As all the four writ petitions are filed against the common order, for identical relief based on identical set of facts involving identical issue and against the same respondents all the four writ petitions are disposed of by common order.
2. Thebrief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows :
The respective father of the writ petitioners in WP.Nos. 26843, 26845 and 26846 of 2009 and the petitioner in WP.No.26844 of 2009 were allotted the vacant site belonging to the 3rd respondent temple at Salem for ground rent and the respective father of three petitioners and the other petitioner as above referred put up constructions over the land and had been running Sri Sarada Vilas Hotel, Usman motor works, Center tiffen center and Buddha saw mill respectively in such construction put up over the land belonging to 3rd respondent and had been paying rent to the respondent temple. While so, the ground rent payable by the respective occupiers was enhanced during 2001 by the 3rd respondent/executive officer of the temple and the original occupiers (i.e.) the respective father of the petitioners in WP.Nos.26843, 26845 and 26846 of 2009 and the original lessee who is the petitioner in WP.No.26844 of 2009 are issued notices demanding payment of rent at the enhanced rate. It is not in dispute that the original lessees did neither challenge the action of the temple executive officer in enhancing the rent nor complied with the demand by paying the enhanced rent and the same compelled the 3rd respondent temple to issue notice to the original lessees, thereby terminating the lease with effect from 31.07.2003 and to treat the petitioners as encroachers from 01.08.2003. The lessees were also in the same notice informed that in the event of the failure to comply with the demand due eviction proceedings will be initiated u/s.78 of the HR&CE Act. Even thereafter, the lessees did not either challenge of the proposed eviction proceedings or complied with the demand.
3. The same is followed by eviction notice issued u/s. 78(2) of the HR&CE Act to the present petitioners by the appropriate authorities and the enquiry was initiated and the occupiers of the land in question were also issued due notice for their personnel appearance in the enquiry before the Joint Commissioner and the petitioners were also called upon to file their written objections and written objections were filed, in which the petitioners sought revision of the fair rent fixed and sought extension of time for paying the same. In the course of enquiry therein the petitioners have also, apprehending forcible dispossession by the 3rd respondent temple, approached our High Court in WP.Nos.3936, 3940, 3941 and 3942 of 2006.
4. Theidentical relief sought for in all the earlier four writ petitions was for forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner therein without passing any order u/s.79 of HR&CE Act in MPs pending on the file of Joint Commissioner, HR&CE and without providing the petitioners therein due opportunity for filing appeal u/s.80 of the HR&CE Act. In the writ petitions the second respondent/executive officer filed his counter thereby drawing the attention of the High Court about the eviction proceedings initiated u/s.78 of the HR&CE Act before the first respondent, therefore our High Court by common order dated 111. 2006 disposed of the writ petitions with the following order :
"4. The very grievance of the petitioners is that they should not be evicted without the first respondent passing any order under section 79 of the said Act. In view of the statement made by the se
