BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.04.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A(MD)Nos.569 to 583 of 2024 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.A(MD)No.569 of 2024 A.Farooq Ali ... Appellant vs.

1. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Thirukovil, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 11.09.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.20960 of 2023.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan for Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian For R1 : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for Mr.S.Ramesh For R2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J.)

Since this batch of writ appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Writ Court dated 11.09.2023 in W.P(MD)No.20960 of 2023 etc., batch, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, all these writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. That the appellants are the writ petitioners before the Writ Court.

They challenged a communication issued by the respondent/Temple authorities dated 10.07.2023, under which, the monthly rent for the shops, which they are holding as lessees, has been enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month with electricity charge of Rs.300/- per month. In this regard, it is their grievance that, hitherto they have been paying a sum of Rs.860/- as a monthly rent, which has been enhanced multifold to Rs.15,000/-, that too, according to them, without putting them under notice.

3. Though with such a prayer, the writ petitions had been filed which were grouped together and decided by the Writ Court, through the impugned common order dated 11.09.2023, where the learned Judge after hearing both sides, has taken a view that insofar as these appellants/petitioners are concerned, they are not the original lessees, in whose favour, lease has been extended by the temple authorities and they claimed to be the sub-lessees by way of sub-letting given by the original lessees and in that context, they have no locus even to challenge the said order of enhancement of the monthly rent.

4. The learned Judge also has taken note of the submission made on behalf of the temple authorities that these shops are located in the Third Pragaram of Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Thirukovil, Rameshwaram, which is one of the famous architectural marvel of the world. Therefore, in order to preserve and protect the architectural marvel of the Third Pragaram of Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Thirukovil, the HR & CE department and the temple authorities wanted to take a policy decision to vacate or evict all those lessees who are having such shops, like the appellants/petitioners and that was also one of the reasons they have given such a notice or order or proceedings enhancing the rent to multifold.

5. These reasons having been taken note of by the learned Judge, the Writ Court has dismissed all those writ petitions by making an observation that first of all, they are the sub-lessees. Therefore, they do not have any locus to challenge the order of enhancement of the rent which has been meant only for the original lessees. Secondly, if any policy decision is taken by the HR & CE Department or the temple authorities, to preserve the architectural marvel of Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Thirukovil, especially, the Third Pragaram, the Court did not want to interfere with the same. These are all the two reasons mainly given by the learned Judge for dismissing the writ petitions through the impugned common order, against which only, this batch of appeals have been directed.

6. Heard Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian, learned counsel on record for the appellants, Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramesh,