M.Gurusamy Nadar vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M. Gurusamy Nadar, was a tenant of a property belonging to Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple. The initial lease was granted in 1990 for three years. The fair rent was later determined by the Executive Officer, but the petitioner allegedly did not pay the full amount, leading to demands for arrears. The Government issued guidelines for fixing fair rent. The petitioner filed multiple petitions challenging various orders related to rent fixation, appeals, and seizure of property. One petition (W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017) was filed by a sub-tenant seeking the return of seized papers. The court consolidated these matters for a common order.

Held

The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.982 of 2016) and disposed of it in terms of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the order, which likely dealt with the fixation of fair rent and arrears. Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.11977 of 2016) was dismissed as infructuous. Writ Petitions (W.P.(MD)Nos.18371 and 18372 of 2017) were dismissed. Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017) was allowed, directing the return of seized papers belonging to the sub-tenant upon satisfaction of ownership and payment of a specified amount. Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.21806 of 2017) was disposed of with directions, likely related to the payment of rent. The Court directed the petitioner (M. Gurusamy Nadar) to pay Rs.15,00,000/- within two months, after which the seized movables would be returned. For the sub-tenant, the Court directed the temple authorities to return the seized papers upon the sub-tenant satisfying ownership and after the main tenant's payment. The seizure of papers belonging to a third party was deemed unauthorized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the fixation of fair rent by the respondents is in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and Rules, and relevant Government Orders and previous High Court orders? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the seizure of papers belonging to the sub-tenant (petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017) by the temple authorities was lawful? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments (M. Gurusamy Nadar): The petitioner argued that the fair rent fixation was not in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and previous court orders. He sought to have the rent fixed as per the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and Rules, G.O.Ms.No.456, dated 09.01.2007, and the directions in W.P.(MD)No.8285 of 2013. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017 argued that the seizure of his papers by the temple authorities was unauthorized. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, representing the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the temple, contended that their actions were in line with the relevant laws and government orders for rent fixation and recovery of arrears. They sought to recover the outstanding rent from the tenant.