V.MARICHAMY NAIDU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the respective petitione order of refixation of fair rent with effect from 1/7/2016.

(2.) The respective petitioner assails the order of refixat rent primarily on the ground that such fair rent has been refixed w retrospective effect. By relying upon an order passed in N.Gurusamy Nadar and Others v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl Endowments Department, 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167, it is contended th the Court categorically held that fixation of fair rent with retros effect is impermissible in law. Therefore, the respective petitione contends that the impugned order of refixation of fair rent is unsustainable. Although an appellate remedy is provided for under Sec. 34A(3) of the Act of 1959, it is submitted that these writ are maintainable in view of the failure of the respondent to take i account the above mentioned order. The respective petitioner also contends that great prejudice would be caused if these writ petition not entertained inasmuch as the proviso to Sec. 34A(5) mandates the refixed rent should be paid and satisfactory proof thereof subm before an appeal is entertained.

(3.) On the contrary, the respondent submits that the const validity of Sec. 34A of the Act of 1959, including in particular proviso to Sec. 34A(5) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Co in the judgment in Arulmigu Angala Parameswa Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2009-3-L.W.728. Therefore, submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable.