JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders on the same by re-fixing the fair rent for the ground alone in respect of the lands in possession of petitioner by calculating the fair rent (ground rent) as 0.30 percentage instead of 0.60 percentage after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders on the same by re-fixing the fair rent for the ground alone in respect of the lands in possession of petitioner by calculating the fair rent (ground rent) as 0.30 percentage instead of 0.60 percentage after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within the time frame.

2. That the petitioner's husband was a tenant in the property belongs to the second respondent temple and in respect of the said property, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has constructed the building in the land belongs to the temple. Therefore, if at all any rent has to be collected, it should be collected only for the ground and not for the structure. When that being so, according to the petitioner, the committee constituted in this regard by the respondent Department, by an order dated 19.12.2019, enhanced the rent and the said enhancement has not been communicated to the petitioner's husband, who subsequently died. The petitioner, wife of the original lessee, who has stepped into the shoes of the original lessee has also not been served the said communication. However, all of a sudden on 13.07.2021, the communication or notice has been received from the second respondent temple demanding a sum of Rs. 4,45,760/- and Rs. 1,37,590/- respectively for Shop No. 3 and Shop No. 10 respectively within 15 days, failing which action would be initiated against the petitioner under Sections 78 and 79(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Felt aggrieved over the said communication, the petitioner has moved this writ petition.

3. Ms. R. Gobika, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, first of all the revision of rent ought not to have been made in respect of the whole building. Secondly, if at all any enhancement has been made by the committee, the same should have been communicated to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have been in a position to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

4. However, all of a sudden, now the impugned demand has been made against the petitioner by the second respondent through their communication dated 13.07.2021. Therefore, the entire proceedings which culminated in the impugned demand, according to the petitioner's counsel, is vitiated and hence she seeks the indulgence of this Court against the impugned order.

5. However Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, the committee constituted in this regard to review the rent already fixed in respect of the shops not only of the petitioner but also others, have decided to enhance the rent. Accordingly, the rent has been enhanced to all the lessees including the petitioner and such a decision has been taken by the committee as early as on 09.12.2019. However, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would fairly contend that the said decision taken by the Committee has not been directly served on the petitioner or previously on the petitioner's husband, who was the original lessee.

6. Assuming that it has not been served directly on the petitioner, subsequently when the petitioner made an RTI query, the second respondent temple, on 27.10.2020, along with the r