IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No. 17624 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.19394 and 19395 of 2024 Kantilal Hirani ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai Zone, Chennai-600 050.

2. The Executive Officer / Committee Head, Arulmigu Sadhukamatchiamman Thirukovil, No.1, Nannian Street, Chennai-600 003.

3. The Thakkar, Arulmigu Sadhukamatchiamman Thirukovil, No.1, Nannian Street, Chennai-600 003.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in the Notices dated 05.02.2024 and 29.04.2024 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

O R D E R

The present writ petition is filed challenging the notices dated 05.02.2024 and 29.04.2024 issued by the respondents 2 and 3 demanding the sums due from the petitioner towards rent and rental arrears.

2. The petitioner is a tenant of the land situated in New No.14, Old No.27, Edapalayam Street, Chennai, belonging to the third respondent temple and has been paying the rents regularly since 1987. He has also constructed a superstructure in the said land, where he is running his business. As per the lease agreement dated 01.07.2016, the rental amount was fixed at Rs.10,070/-. It is the claim of the petitioner that though the above rent was fixed, the earlier rental amount of Rs.8,757/- was only collected from him. However, the petitioner received a notice dated 28.11.2017 demanding arrears of rent, failing which, the lease agreement will be terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice, which was not answered. Thereafter the lease agreement was once again renewed at the end of the 3 years lease period and a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- was agreed and fixed, which the petitioner continued to pay. Once again on 25.05.2022, a letter was addressed to the petitioner claiming the monthly rental amount of Rs.32,970/- calculated as per the market value. Another notice dated 05.02.2024 was received demanding a sum of Rs.21,66,208/- towards rental arrears. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 08.03.2024 to the second respondent, made a deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance rent as per the lease agreement dated 15.12.2018. However, even pursuant to the same the third respondent issued the impugned notice dated 29.04.2024 demanding the payment of monthly rent of Rs.32,972/- along with balance amount of Rs.2,00,860/-, for which, no calculation was given. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner claimed that there was a lease agreement between the Trustees of the temple and the petitioner vide lease agreement dated 01.07.2016. Such a lease agreement is invalid in law as per Section 34 of the HR & CE Act. Any lease beyond the period of five years requires the sanction of the Commissioner of HR & CE Department. In the present case, in order to defeat the said provision, the Trustees and the petitioner colluded between themselves and executed a lease deed for a period of three years. There was subsequently no renewal between the petitioner and the Trustees and therefore, after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner was treated as encroacher. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, applying the market value and as per the Rules in vogue, the rent was fixed as Rs.32,972/- from 2016 onwards. However, this Court may exercise its discretionary powers to fix the rent between 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2022 and confirm the rent fixed by the authorities as Rs.32,972/- and direct the petitioner to pay the amount.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned