M. Kumarasamy Health And Educational Trust vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M. Kumarasamy Health and Educational Trust, challenged orders demanding arrears of rent for a 6.33-acre land belonging to Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil. The petitioner claimed the land was leased for 99 years by previous trustees and used for its educational institution. The respondents, from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, sought to recover rent, including a demand for Rs. 67,44,700/- as arrears till September 30, 2018, and later initiated attachment proceedings for unpaid fair rent. The petitioner had handed over the land back to the temple on February 28, 2022. The petitioner argued that the fair rent was fixed without following due procedure and without providing an opportunity to object, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents contended the petitioner was initially an encroacher who undertook to pay fair rent, and the rent was fixed after considering market rates.

Held

The Court held that the fixation of fair rent by the respondents did not violate the principles of natural justice, as the proceedings dated 02.02.2009 indicated that lessees were given sufficient opportunity to place materials regarding fair rental value before the committee. Regarding the dismissal of the appeal, the Court found it was a creature of statute, and the Commissioner was entitled to lay down conditions for its entertainment. The petitioner admittedly failed to pay the amount required under Section 34(A)(5) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, while preferring the appeal, making its dismissal legally sustainable. However, to ensure fairness and address the petitioner's concerns about the rent fixation, the Court directed the Committee constituted under Section 34(A) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, to revisit the fixation of fair rent for the subject property from 2013. This revisit must consider the market rent prevailing at the relevant time and the calculation from 2013 until the property's handover. The petitioner is to be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed rent, and upon finalization, arrears are to be paid in six equal monthly installments, with an immediate payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to be adjusted against the final fair rent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the fixation of fair rent for the subject land by the respondents, without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to raise objections, violates the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner, particularly in light of Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, 1959? 2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner under Section 34(A)(3) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, for non-payment of the required deposit amount, was legally sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the fair rent was fixed exorbitantly and without adhering to the procedural guidelines laid down in Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, 1959, and relevant government orders. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2009) and other precedents to assert that natural justice was violated due to lack of notice and opportunity to object. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was initially treated as an encroacher, but proceedings were dropped based on an undertaking to pay fair rent. They contended that the fair rent was fixed by a committee considering market rent and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on grounds of laches, as the order from 2018 was challenged in 2023. They also cited K. Narayanan Vs. Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department (2007) to support the temple's right to claim arrears.