Madras High Court
WA/479/2002 of THE EXE.OFFICER, ARULMI Vs K.KANDHAN on 22 December 2006
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 22.12.2006 Coram:- The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:- 22.12.2006
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN
Writ Appeal No.479 of 2002
The Executive Officer,Arulmigu Srinivasa PerumalThirukoil, Egmore, Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent K.Kandhan .. Respondent/Petitioner Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder of this Court dated 21.12.2001 made in W.P.No.25710 of 2001.
[W.P.No.25710 of 2001 presented under Article 226 of the constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grantlease or rent to the petitioner for the vacant land of 378 Sq. ft. situateat S.No.28 behind the Compound wall of the building in door No.881 inPurasawalkam Village at High Road by fixing the amount of lease or rent onpar with the lands situated next to the placed occupied by the petitioner].
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2001made in W.P.No.25710 of 2001, in and by which, the learned singleJudge, permitted the writ petitioner to file a representation before theAssistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai, and also directedthe respondent that if any such representation is filed, taking note ofthe claim of the petitioner that he is in occupation from 1994, toconsider and dispose of the same. Questioning the said order, theExecutive Officer, Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukoil, Egmore, Chennai,has filed the present appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as wellas the respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-landlord contendedthat the impugned order was passed by the learned single Judge withouthearing the temple and on this ground, the order has to be set aside.She further submitted that in view of the interim order dated 29.08.2003in WAMP No.962 of 2002, steps have been taken and as on date, therespondent herein-writ petitioner is not in possession of the property inquestion.
4. On the other hand, Mrs.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent, submitted that when the writ petition came up for hearingon 21.12.2001, on direction by the learned single Judge, Mr.G.Sukumaran,the then Special Government Pleader (HR & CE), on getting instructionfrom the temple, represented and on hearing both counsel, the learnedsingle Judge has issued direction for disposal of the representation ofthe petitioner. Hence, according to her, there is no ground forinterference. On specific instruction, the learned counsel for therespondent submitted that even today, the respondent is in occupation ofthe premises in question and she prays that necessary direction may beissued to the temple authorities for accepting his request and therespondent is willing to pay any reasonable rent that is being fixed bythe temple-competent authority.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by both the counsel. Itis brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for therespondent that on receipt of the notice dated 11.12.2000 issued by thetemple, the respondent herein sent a detailed representation on 22.12.2000itself mentioning several aspects. On perusal of the saidrepresentation, it shows that the place in question is a vacant sitebelonging to the temple and after reclamation, the respondent iscontinuing his possession in the premises by running a book stall and hewants to continue the same. He also conveyed his intention that he iswilling to pay reasonable rent being paid by other lessees of the temple.
6. Inasmuch as the Special Government Pleader in-charge of HR & CEcase took notice and represented the temple, we do not find anyprocedural flaw. In the same way, we are also of the view that theappellant-temple cannot contend that their stand was not projected beforethe learned single Judge.
7. Taking note of the information furnished in the representation ofthe respondent dated 22.12.2000, and of the fact that his request seemsto be reasonable and acceptable, more particularly, beneficial to thetemple, we are of the view that there is nothing wrong in considering thesaid representation dated 22.12.2000 or the subsequent representation, ifany, on the orders of the learned single Judge.
8. In view of the same, we direct the temple authority to consider theclaim of the respondent-writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders,since the same is beneficial to the temple, within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear thatthe temple-competent authority is free to fix reasonable rent for the areain question. While fixing the same, the authority is directed to considerthe rent being paid by the other similarly placed lessees/tenants.
9. The writ appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.raaToThe Executive Officer,Arulmigu Srinivasa PerumalThirukoil, Egmore, Chennai.+ 1 CC To Mr. A.Arulmozhi, Advocate SR NO. 64849 W.A.No.479 of 2002jrg[co]Gp/5.1