The mandatory deposit requirement for appeals under Section 34-A (5) is upheld as constitutional, ensuring protection of religious institutions' financial interests.

ORDER

Challenging the alleged fixation of fair rent as exorbitant and illegal and the non-entertainment of the appeal without deposit of satisfactory proof of deposit of the lease rent as provided u/s 34-A (5) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (for short ‘the Act’) the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a company which is engaged in the manufacture of medicinal preparations, popularly known as ‘Amrutanjan’. The petitioner has engaged several workers in its official premises, which belongs to the 2^nd respondent. The said premises is rented out to the petitioner on the basis of a lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and for the purpose of carrying on its business, the petitioner has made several improvements to the structure, worth crores of rupees. The petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1,400/- per month as rent to the 2^nd respondent.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of blue, the 2^nd respondent issued a demand notice dated 10.08.2005 demanding a sum of Rs.3,30,882/- as rent per month retrospectively from 1.11.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 34-A of the Act.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the fair rent fixed by the 2^nd respondent is exorbitant and has been fixed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the said provision does not empower the Committee to make any retrospective levy. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of rent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1^st respondent u/s 34-A (3) of the Act. However, the said appeal was not entertained by the 1^st respondent in view of proviso to Section 34-A (5), which provides that the appeal shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof with regard to deposit of lease rent so fixed.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid proviso mandating deposit of lease rent makes the appeal remedy illusory and, therefore, the said proviso is arbitrary and unconstitutional and, therefore, left with no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has come before this Court through the present petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 34-A (5) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the the appeal against the fixation of rent by the temple authorities, being the first recourse to an aggrieved lessee/tenant, no pre-condition for filing such appeal can be levied. Furthermore, it is submitted that the levy cannot be made retrospectively, as it runs to crores of rupees in the form of rent and forcing the petitioner to deposit the rent as a condition precedent for taking up the appeal for consideration hits at the right of the petitioner and makes the appeal remedy illusory and nugatory. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals – Vs – Union of India (2004 (4) SCC 311).

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even otherwise, the fixation of rent at Rs.3,30,282/- per month is highly exorbitant and excessive and the condition of pre-deposit is onerous and by the retrospective levy, the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal is made impossible and it hits at the right of the petitioner to get a legal remedy. 8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner, though had preferred an appeal u/s 34-A (3) of the Act, however, in view of the proviso to Section 34-A (5), the 1^st respondent is powerless to take the appeal as there is no provision for any r