The court clarifies tenant rights under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the necessity of fair rent fixation for long-term occupants while maintaining legal procedures and the surrender of superstructure rights.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records on the file of the 4th respondent relating to the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1964/2025-1/E2, dated 14.11.2025 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent tenant of the land of the 5th respondent Temple for the lands in their possession and enjoyment measuring about 810 sq.ft in S.Nos.7/6 and 38/1 and fix reasonable land rent for the said lands.

2. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners point out to the earlier order that was passed by this Court in W.P.No.46187 of 2025 batch, on 25.11.2025 in respect of the very same temple and the adjacent piece and parcels of land whereby, this Court had directed the temple to recognise these occupants as the tenants by fixing the fair rent and also directed the tenants to unconditionally declare that they will give up their right over the superstructure and recognise the right of the temple and undertake that they will be willing to pay the fair rent. As a matter of fact, it is just and necessary to extract the entire order that is passed by this Court in W.P.No.46187 of 2025 batch, from paragraph Nos.2 to 9 and the same is extracted hereunder:

“2.The proceedings have arisen under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, were the petitioners have been treated as encroachers and have been called upon to vacate their respective premises.

3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners have put up construction out of their self earned monies and have been in physical possession and enjoyment for over 20 years, despite the Sub- Collector recommending the authorities to regularize the tenancies of the writ petitioners, by fixing fair rent for the land. According to the petitioners, no proceedings were initiated by the department thereafter. However, without even referring to the recommendations of the Sub Collector, the respondents have proceeded to initiate coercive proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE Act.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are willing to pay the fair rent for the land and as on date, according to the learned counsel, the fair rent has not been fixed, despite the recommendations given by the Sub-Collector which also considered by the Joint Commissioner in proceedings Na.Ka.No2758/2024-2/AA1 dated 27.01.2025.

5.It was brought to my notice by the learned Special Government Pleader that even in the said communication issued by the Joint Commissioner, it had been made clear that the petitioners must agree to surrender the buildings to the temple and agree for fixation of fair rent for the land and building for the tenancies to be regularized.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners however states that, the petitioners cannot be called up to pay rents for the buildings put up by them admittedly and originally, it was only a private temple and only after the petitioners came to occupy their respective properties, the temple was handed over to the department and therefore, it would be unreasonable for the respondents to claim fair rent for the superstructure. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also states that, other than the petitioners, some of the other occupants have challenged the orders passed by the 3rd respondent by way of filing revision and the same are pending before the 2nd respondent.

7.Be that as it may, considering that the petitioners have admittedly constructed their respective houses and they had been residing for more than two decades and the Sub- Collector has also recommended for fixation of fair r