Balanced tenants' rights with temple safety by directing reconstruction and priority shop allotment to bona fide tenants.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings Nil dated 30.11.2024 issued by the third respondent pursuant to the orders in R.P.Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 42 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent dated

04.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal.

2. The land in Survey No.92/1B2C1 measuring an extent of

14,790 sq.ft belonging to Subramaniyaswamy Temple, U.Keeranur, was leased out to one Nallathambi on 25.10.1961, who constructed the building and let out the shops to various tenants. The petitioners were inducted as tenants in the ground floor and started running the shops for livelihood. The said Nallathambi collected rent from the tenants representing himself as the owner of the building and after the demise of Nallathambi, his legal heirs demanded and collected rent from the tenants including the petitioners. In the year 2013, the Temple Authorities issued notice directing the tenants to pay rent directly to the Temple and from the year 2013 onwards, the petitioners and other tenants started paying rent to the Temple and the petitioners have also paid the entire arrears amount as demanded by the Temple. While so, on 28.10.2022, the second respondent passed an order under Section 78(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, declaring all the tenants as encroachers and directing them to vacate the premises, despite there being no arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred revision petitions under Section 21 of the Act before the first respondent. The first respondent passed orders confirming the eviction order passed by the second respondent on 04.11.2024. Thereafter, on 30.11.2024, the third respondent issued notice directing the petitioners to hand over possession within 15 days, failing which, coercive action would be taken. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent occupants, who have been occupying the said shops and eking their livelihood and that they have also been paying the rents regularly to the respondents once the respondents put them on notice about the lands belonging to the temple. Therefore, considering the plight of the petitioners and also the fact that the shops are the very livelihood, it is submitted that this Court may safeguard the interests of the petitioners while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the deity and that the petitioners will abide by any conditions that are imposed by this Court. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that Kumbabhishekam was performed in the Temple prior to 30 years and the temple structure and adjacent structures are in a dilapidated condition and is unfit for occupation irrespective of payment of rents regularly by the tenants. It is necessary to demolish the building in the interest of public safety and therefore, the respondents decided to construct the temple and also decided to construct Nandavanam, Palkavadi Mandapam and Annadhana Koodam and commercial shops for the benefit of the deity for conducting poojas after obtaining the Expert opinion.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioners are innocent tenants and have been in occupation of the tenanted premises for a long length of time and that they have been regularly paying the rents to the respondents and that they are also not in arrears of any rent and also taking into consideration the fact that they are eking out their livelihood from and out of the said business and also that they would abide by the conditions that would be imposed by this Court and also taking into account the fact that the temple and the adjacent building housing the shops are in a dilapidated conditions, as submitted by the learned Special Government