Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act is applicable to lands owned by religious institutions, and absence of NOC does not invalidate prior valid transactions per judicial precedents.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner so as to enable them to register the sale certificate dated 18.5.2019 issued in favour of the fifth respondent pertaining to the property at Old Door No.14, New Door No.10, Tank Street, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 forming part of Puliyur Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District comprised in Survey No.19, T.S.No.73/8, Block No.44 and as per the present revenue records T.S.No.73/10 measuring an extent of 4,560 sq.ft.

2. Heard the respective learned counsel on either side.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 24.3.2025, this Court, upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, passed the following order :

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent-Temple.

2. The case of the petitioner-Bank is that the subject property originally belonged to the Temple and the superstructure was owned by one Govindasamy Naicker. He subsequently conveyed the same in favour of Elumalai Chettiyar, who is the father of the fourth respondent, through a registered sale deed dated 26.08.1967, registered as Document No.2336/1967. After the purchase of the said property, Elumalai Chettiyar settled the property in favour of the fourth respondent by a registered settlement deed. Thereafter, an Ejectment Suit was instituted in Suit No.61/1974 by the then Hereditary Trustee of the Temple against the said Elumalai Chettiyar. The said Elumalai Chettiyar filed an application in CMP.No.3116/1974 under Section 9 of the TAMIL NADU CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT . This application came to be allowed by the concerned Court on 20.08.1976, and a direction was issued to the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple to execute a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent after receiving the sale consideration. Accordingly, a sale deed dated 15.12.1978 was executed in favour of the fourth respondent and this document was registered as Document No.4341/1978. Thus the fourth respondent became the absolute owner of the subject property. The legal heirs of fourth respondent, namely his wife and children also released/relinquished their respective rights in his favour under the Deed of Release dated 09.10.2013 registered as Document No.3796/2013.

3. The third respondent had availed a credit facility from the petitioner Bank. The fourth respondent stood as a guarantor and deposited the original title deeds with an intention to create an encumbrance over the property. The fourth respondent executed a MOD dated 30.12.2013 and the same was registered as Document No. 4770/2013. Subsequently, there was a default in repayment of loan amount and the account was categorized as 'NPA', and proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act by the petitioner- Bank. Ultimately, the subject property came to be sold in an e-auction conducted on 13.05.2019. The auction purchaser was the fifth respondent. He remitted the entire sale price and a sale certificate dated 18.05.2019 was issued in favour of the fifth respondent. When the sale certificate was presented for registration before the second respondent, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the petitioner must obtain an NOC from the first respondent. It is under thes