1. Lessees of a temple challenged fixation of fair rent under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 7 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Balasubramanian N – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner – Respondent
WP(MD)No.35099 of 2025|WP(MD)No.35100 of 2025|WP(MD)No.35101 of 2025|WP(MD)No.35102 of 2025|WP(MD)No.35103 of 2025|WP(MD)No.35104 of 2025
1. Lessees of a temple challenged fixation of fair rent under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 7 )
2. Petitioners argued violation of natural justice as no opportunity was provided; respondents contended fair rent was fixed following statutory procedure and notice was given. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Writ petitions allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration with directions to provide opportunity and follow procedure. (Para 12 )
The lessee must be put on notice of all factors and details taken into account for revising the fair rent, including market value and PWD reports, to enable effective objections. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
The order fixing fair rent involves adjudication of civil rights, as the lessee is required to pay the rent fixed, and thus natural justice must be followed. (Para 11 )
No, the committee cannot fix fair rent unilaterally; it must issue notice with all relevant details and consider the lessee's objections before finalizing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
Fair rent must be revised at least once every three years by a committee, based on market value of land and cost of building as per PWD Code. (Para 9 )
The proviso requiring deposit does not eliminate the need for natural justice; the committee must still provide a fair hearing before fixing rent. (Para 11 )
ORDER
The petitioners are lessees of Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman Temple, Kadayanallur and they are running shops in the lands belonging to the temple. The petitioners have approached this court questioning the manner in which, the rent has been fixed for their shops vide the order impugned in these writ petitions.
2.The case of the petitioners is that they are lessees of the temple from the year 2001 and by the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondents have fixed rent in an onerous manner by increasing 300%, instead of 15%. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without even providing an opportunity to the petitioners. In this regard the learned counsel has also relied on the order of the Division Bench of this court in WA.No.786 of 2022 , dated 01.08.2022.
3.Mr.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and submits that fair rent has been fixed by the respondents as provided under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act and also by following the procedures as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, notice was issued to the petitioners and they have also submitted their objections. While so they cannot take a plea that they have not been provided opportunity and there is violation of principles of natural justice. He has also produced a copy of the notice and the explanation offered by the petitioners.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader has produced the proceedings of the committee consisting of the Executive Officer of the temple, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, the District Registrar of Registration Department. He further submits that there are seven shops and fair rent has been fixed to all the seven shops. One of the lessees has accepted the fair rent and has also paid the same, however, the petitioners are objecting to it.
5.He has referred to Rule 17 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 and submits that fair rent shall be revised periodically once in a three years in accordance with the market value of the land and cost of the buildings as worked out as per the code of the Public Works Department. Therefore, according to him, there is no error in the impugned order. He has also referred to Sub Sections 3 and 5 of Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, they are having appeal remedy before the Commissioner of HR and CE Department and however, the remedy is also provided by way of revision before the Court. Therefore, according to him these writ petitions are not maintainable.
6.This court has considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The petitioners are lessees of Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman temple and they claim that they are continuing as lessees from the year 2001. By the order impugned in this writ petition, fair rent has been fixed by the respondent No.2. The ground on which the petitioners have challenged the fixation of fair rent is that before fixing fair rent, they have not been provided an opportunity.
8.The lease of public properties shall be made only by way of public auction. However, in this case the respondents are prepared to enhance the rent by fixing fair rent. Fixation of fair rent is guided by the provisions under Section 34 -A of the HR and CE Act as under:
“34-A. Fixation of lease rent.—The lease rent payable for the lease of immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, shall be fixed by a Committee consisting of the Joint Commissioner, the Executive Officer or the Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, of the religious institution and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top