Estoppel of tenant from disputing the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 1st respondent relating to her proceedings passed in M.P.No.39/2022/A3 dated 23.01.2023 u/s 78 (2) of HR and CE Act, 1959 and quash the same as the respondents have no jurisdiction to invoke Section 78 HR and CE Act, 1959 in regard to the land specified in the proceedings above mentioned and consequentially pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the side bearing Door No.17, West Arasa Marath Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29 comprised in T.S.No.59, Block No.24 of Aminijikarai within the Greater Chennai Corporation Limits.)

1. The above writ petition is filed by the sons of T.S.Ramadoss Naidu (Late) who were elder and younger brothers. The petition mentioned premises is Door No.17, Arasa Marath Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 00 029, comprised in T.S.No.59 in Block No.24 of Aminjikarai Village within the Greater Chennai Corpration Limits.

2. According to the petitioner, originally a minor inam land was granted in favour of Shri Ekambareswarar Koil at Aminjikarai Village and the temple leased the site to the petitioners'' father Ramadoss for construction of houses long back in the year 1925-1930. The petitioners'' father Ramadoss constructed house in T.S.No.59 in Block No.24 of Aminjikarai Village and lived there since then.

3. Learned counsel Mr.Venkatasamy, appearing for the petitioners would contend that in respect of the land in question specified in the impugned notice, the Settlement Tahsildar did not grant patta in favour of the temple. But Settlement Tahsildar granted Ground Rent Patta under Section 13(1) of the Act jointly in favour of the temple and the building owner.

4. The prayer in the writ petition is as under:

“for issuance of a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to her proceedings passed in M.P.No.39/2022/A3 dated 23.01.2023 u/s 78 (2) of HR and CE Act, 1959 and quash the same as the respondents have no jurisdiction to invoke Section 78 HR and CE Act, 1959 in regard to the land specified in the proceedings above mentioned and consequentially pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the side bearing Door No.17, West Arasa Marath Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29 comprised in T.S.No.59, Block No.24 of Aminijikarai within the Greater Chennai Corporation Limits.”

5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (HR&CE), appearing for the respondents.

6. Vide the impugned proceedings, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, 1st respondent herein called upon the petitioners'' herein to show cause as to why possession of the property should not be resumed by the temple for the non payment of rent resulted in declaring them as ''encroacher'', under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act and hence, a show cause notice was issued under Section 78(2) of the Act.

7. (a) The learned Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) would contend that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and hence, writ petition is not maintainable and further, on instructions, he submitted that the petition mentioned premises is a temple land and initially the arrears of rent to be paid is Rs.646.50 as on 01.07.2001 and the total extent of land is 1860sq.ft.

(b) The petitioners were on default from the year 2001-2013 and in the year 2016, after observing the procedures therefor, fair rent has been fixed in the said proceedings. Copy of the same, was served upon the TR Harikrishnaiah, the 1st petitioner herein.

(c) The revised rent from 01.07.2016 is Rs.9,300/- per month. The fair rent proceedings has been completed. However, he has failed to remit the arrears of rent and was also given the calculation sheet showing that the