R.Sudalaimuthu vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, R. Sudalaimuthu, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (2nd respondent). This order fixed the fair rent payable by the petitioner for a property measuring 1435 sq.ft. situated at S.No.93, Sammapattipuram Hamlet, Ponmeni Village, Madurai District, under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioner's primary contention was that the fair rent was fixed without affording him a proper opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The existing rent was Rs.300/- per month, and the property is located in a commercial area of Madurai.

Held

The Court held that the fixation of fair rent by the 2nd respondent without affording a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice. This finding was based on the categorical holding of the Division Bench of the same High Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association vs The State of Tamil Nadu and others (2009 (6) CTC 512). The Court rejected the contention of the 2nd respondent that no opportunity was necessary. Consequently, the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Committee comprising of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for fresh consideration. As an interim measure, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as rent, leading to arrears of Rs.2,40,000/- for the past five years, which had to be paid within four weeks. Upon payment of this amount, the Committee was to fix the fair rent after affording sufficient opportunity, including personal hearing, to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The Court noted that the existing rent of Rs.300/- was a paltry sum for a property in the heart of Madurai.

Key Issues

1. Whether the fixation of fair rent under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by the 2nd respondent without providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent fixed the fair rent without hearing him. He relied on the Division Bench judgment in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association vs The State of Tamil Nadu and others (2009 (6) CTC 512), which held that a failure of natural justice at the original stage cannot be cured by the appellate authority and that an appeal cannot be an overall substitute for a breach of fundamental procedure. The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as no sufficient opportunity was granted before fixing the fair rent. Revenue/State's Arguments: The 2nd respondent, in their counter affidavit, contended that there was no necessity to afford an opportunity to the petitioner under Section 34-A of the Act before fixing the fair rent.