Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1910
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
S. Vadamalai Raj – Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 12160 of 2016 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 9258, 9259 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Ms. K. Vidya for M/s. J. Lawrance.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Muruganandam Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mr. K. Karuppasamy Pandian.
The main legal point established is that a party should exhaust available alternative remedies before seeking relief from the court.
Headnote:
Tenant - Eviction - Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Act, 1959 - Section 78, Section 79 - The court discussed the tenancy of the petitioner's father in a property belonging to a temple, the demand for arrears of rent, and the subsequent eviction proceedings initiated by the temple authorities. The court also highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act for the petitioner to challenge the eviction orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father was a tenant in a property belonging to a temple. After the father's death, the petitioner, as the legal heir, continued to occupy the property and pay rent. The temple issued a demand notice for arrears of rent and initiated eviction proceedings, leading the petitioner to approach the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959 to challenge the eviction orders and directed the petitioner to pursue that remedy before approaching the court.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the eviction proceedings initiated by the temple authorities and the petitioner's right to challenge them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should first pursue the available remedy under the Act before approaching the court for relief.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner three weeks to file a revision or initiate further proceedings under the Act. The court also directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the property until the resolution of the alternative remedy.
1. Heard both sides.
2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.
4. According to the Petitioner, his father Late. Subramania Pillai was a tenant in the house property, more particularly, Door No.51, Ward No.19, Varadarajapuram, East Street, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District for the past 40 years. As a matter of fact, the house belongs to the Third Respondent/Arulmighu Kasiviswanathan Kambaraya Perumal Temple, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. As a matter of fact, his father's name Subramania Pillai was shown in the official records maintained by the Third Respondent/Temple, establishing the tenancy of his father in the said property.
5. The stand of the Petitioner is that his father Late. Subramania Pillai died five years back and he is the only person as his legal heir, who is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Asbestos Sheet House and paying rents to the Third Respondent/Temple. At this stage, the grievance of the Petitioner is that on 17.02.2014, the Third Respondent/Temple issued a communication addressed to him wherein, a sum of Rs.41,640/- was demanded towards the arrears of rent payable in respect of the aforesaid house upto the period 30.11.2013 and if the same was not paid, he would be evicted by using the force. In continuation of the aforesaid Demand Notice/Eviction Notice, the First Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Near Meenakshi Temple, Madurai issued proceedings, dated 26.8.2015 by way of show-cause notice under Section 78(2) of the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Act, 1959 (in short called as the 'Act') requiring him to appear before him at 3.00 p.m. On 30.09.2015 and also stated in the said notice that in the event of failure to appear before him, proceedings under Section 78(4) of the Act would be initiated against him and further, he would be evicted from the property in question.
6. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that during the particular period of issuing the aforesaid proceedings to the Petitioner under Section 78(2) of the 'Act' the Petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and therefore, he left for native treatment to Kerala State and was not present before the First Respondent for the enquiry on 30.09.2015. Further, the First Respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 3.3.2016 wherein, the Petitioner was directed to be evicted immediately and in fact, copy of the order was not served on him. That apart, the Second Respondent/The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Pandyan Nagar, Dindigul by means of proceedings, dated 29.6.2016 issued proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the 'Act', directing the Petitioner to vacate from the house property stating that he is an encroacher and informed that he would be evicted by 13.07.2016.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had paid the outstanding rental amount of Rs.61,068/- to the Third Respondent/ Temple and this itself would vehemently shows that the Petitioner is not keeping any amount towards arrears of rent and has paid the rent in question.
8. It may not be out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that admittedly, the First Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Near Meenakshi Temple, Madurai, had issued a notice to the Petitioner treating him as an encroacher and also called upon him to explain in writing as to why he should not be evicted from the Temple property. Explanation was sought to be submitted by the Petitioner on or before 30.9.2015. Also, a cursory perusal of the proceedings in Na.Ka.N
