W.P.(MD).No.13607 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.(MD).No.13607 of 2018

and

W.M.P.(MD).No.12387 of 2018

T.Manickavel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

HR&CE Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Chennai-34.

2.The Executive Officer,

Arulmighu Nateswarar Thirukovil (AKA)

Arulmighu Natarajar Thirukovil,

Nilakkottai,

Dindigul District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his

letter dated 07.06.2018 and quash the same and further direct the

respondents to attorn the ground lease of Shop No.12-5-16, Main

Bazaar, Nilakkottai in the name of the petitioner.

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana

For R1

: Mr.P.Subbaraj

Special Government Pleader

For R2

: Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian

ORDER

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for

the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second

respondent.

2. In this writ petition, by a communication, dated 07.06.2018,

the respondents have demanded arrears of rent amounting to

RS.92,492/- for a period up to 30.06.2018 calculated at Rs.5,164/-

per month. At the time of admission of this writ petition, an

interim order passed by this Court on 26.06.2018. As per the order,

the petitioner was directed to pay admitted ground rent within a

period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the fact that the

petitioner has paid a ground rent of Rs.1,00,270/-. It is submitted

that the petitioner is actually liable to pay only a sum of

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD).No.13607 of 2018

Rs.34,560/- as rent and that the balance amount paid in excess of

Rs.65,710/- is to be refunded back.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that the impugned

communication dated 07.06.2018, the respondent temple had demanded

rent at the rate of Rs.5,164/- on the land and the superstructure,

even though superstructure was put up by the petitioner’s father. It

is therefore submitted that the calculation in the impugned

communication is bad. It is further submitted that no fixation of

fair rent and in any event, the petitioner was not informed about

the same prior to the impugned notice. Therefore, the amount paid by

the petitioner has to be treated as a deposit subject to final

determination.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

would submit that the petitioner is required to pay a sum of

Rs.2,47,824/- on 344.25 square feet of land and therefore, the

petitioner should pay the aforesaid rent. It is submitted that the

rent that is payable according to the respondent is on the market

value as detailed below:

12.$Ljy; (10+11)

:

13.thlifjhuh; mDgtpj;J

: 344.25 r.m

tUk; epyg;gug;G

14.epyj;jpd; topfhl;b

: rJu mb 1f;F &.500.00

kjpg;G 01.07.2016d; gb

15.epyj;jpd; nkhj;j kjpg;G

: 344.25 x 50 = 172105.00

16.,ju $Ljy; trjpfs; ,Ue;jhy;

: ------

mtw;wpd; tpguk; kw;Wk; kjpg;G

17.nkhj;j kjpg;G t.vz; (12+15+16) : 172105.00

18.thlifjhuh; gad;gLj;Jk; tpjk; : tzpfk; (kid)

(kidfl;blk;tzpfk;FbapUg;G)

19.khjhe;jpu thlif kid tzpfk;

: 0.3% 172105 516.38

20.jw;Nghija thlif

: 2187.00

21.khj thlif kid tzpfj;jpw;F : 344.25 x 10= 3442.50

re;ij kjpg;Gg;gb rJub 1f;F &

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that only 320

square feet of land has been leased to the petitioner’s father. The

fact that the petitioner has been recognised as a tenant stands

established. It is evident from the fact that the notice has been

issued, though the leas