Sp. Chinnaiah vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioners, identified as tenants (1-11) and encroachers (12-19), challenged an order dated March 19, 2018, passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, concerning the fixation of fair rent for premises. The petitioners contended that they were not given proper notice before the fair rent was fixed and that the order was issued by a superior officer, violating Section 34(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The respondents argued that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and delayed challenging the order, making it hit by laches and non-exhaustion of appeal remedies. They also claimed some petitioners were encroachers and others were in arrears of rent.

Held

The Court held that the fixation of fair rent must adhere to the guidelines issued under Section 34(A) of the Act, which mandate furnishing a worksheet to tenants, calling for objections, and finalizing the rent after considering them. The Court found that the opportunity to object at the first instance was not given to the petitioners 1 to 11, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice and not curable. The Court also noted that the order was passed by the Joint Commissioner, whereas Section 34(A) specifies the Executive Officer, Trustee, or Chairman of the Board of Trustees as the competent authority. Consequently, the order dated March 19, 2018, was set aside for petitioners 1 to 11 on the ground of violation of natural justice. Regarding the issue of laches, the Court acknowledged the delay but chose to restrict its decision to the violation of natural justice. For petitioners 12 to 19, the writ petition was dismissed on grounds of laches and lack of locus standi as they were considered encroachers. The Court clarified that it was not concerned with proceedings under Section 78 of the Act and that respondents could proceed for non-payment of admitted old rent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order fixing fair rent is liable to be quashed for violation of Section 34(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the failure to provide notice and opportunity to object before fixation? 2. Whether the writ petition is barred by laches and non-exhaustion of appeal remedies, given the delay in challenging the order? 3. Whether petitioners 12 to 19, alleged to be encroachers, have the locus standi to challenge the fair rent fixation order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the fixation of fair rent was illegal and without jurisdiction as they were not given notice and an opportunity to raise objections before the fair rent committee, violating Section 34(A) of the Act. They relied on the case of Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Adimanaiveal House Owners Asso. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and delayed challenging the order, thus being hit by laches. They also argued that the petitioners had not exhausted their appeal remedy under Section 34(A)(3) of the Act. Furthermore, they asserted that petitioners 12 to 19 were encroachers and lacked locus standi, and that some petitioners were in arrears of rent as per Section 34(B) of the Act.