UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS; JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS; EXECUTIVE OFFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner would state that his father, viz., Thiru.E.Prabhakaran, was allotted a commercial premises admeasuring to an extent of 154 sq.ft. during the year 1967 at Door No.22/23, Mangollai, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and his father was running a Tiffin shop by paying the monthly rent regularly. The 4th respondent temple had also recognised the lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's father. The father of the petitioner died during the year 1992 and thereafter, the petitioner started running the business and also paying the rent. The petitioner had also approached the 4th respondent for transfer of leasehold in his favour and undertook to pay the necessary charges and despite several representations, no orders have been passed. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.,148,312/-, representing the arrears and immediately, he remitted a sum of Rs.60,000/- and it was also received. The petitioner would further state that the 2nd respondent has issued a notice dated 03.08.2015 u/s.78[2] of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, stating that he is an encroacher and called upon him to offer his explanation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that after the demise of his father, he is in possession and running the business and also approached the 4th respondent very many times for transfer of lease in his favour and since no orders are passed, the petitioner undertook to pay the arrears, if any. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that without affording an reasonable opportunity whatsoever, the impugned notice came to be passed, treating the petitioner as an encroacher and the shop was also sealed on 31.05.2016.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is false to say that the petitioner had sub-let the premises in favour of one Krishnamoorthy and the said person is an employee only and the business was run by the petitioner on the demise of his father and therefore, prays for appropriate orders including the lifting the seal of the premises.