A SURESHKUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT; JOINT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT; EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU RATHINA VINAYAGAR AND DURGAI AMMAN TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner would state that Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple situate at Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014 owns vacant land in T.S.No.325/7 bearing Door No.35, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014, admeasuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft. and the father of the petitioner took it on lease through registered Lease Deed dated 29.12.1970 in Doc.No.1305/1970. Initially, rent for the land was fixed at Rs.7.50/- per month and the terms of the lease permitted the lessee to put up superstructure over the said vacant and accordingly, the father of the petitioner put up superstructure admeasuring to an extent of 350 Sq.ft for commercial use and 850 Sq.ft for residential purpose. The petitioner would further state that during the year 1983, the land rent was increased to Rs.11.25/- per month and thereafter, it was increased to Rs.300/- per month from August 1995 onwards and till date, the land rent fixed by the authorities has been paid by his father till his demise and subsequent to the demise of his father, the petitioner has been paying the rent without any default.

(3.) It is further stated by the petitioner that third respondent has issued a notice dated 15.04.2004 in and by which the third respondent informed that the fair rent for the said premises has been fixed retrospectively from 01.11.2001 at Rs.18,240/- and the third respondent demanded Rs.5,20,560/- towards land rent for the period from 1.11.2001 to the date of notice as well as Rs.1,09,440/- towards advance, aggregating to a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- and it has also been indicated that if the amount is not paid, father of the petitioner will be treated as trespasser and action will be initiated under Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [in short 'HR & CE Act']. The father of the petitioner, challenging the said notice, filed W.P.No.12870/2004 and it was dismissed on 02.07.2008, granting liberty to him to avail alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 34(A)(3) of the HR&CE Act and accordingly, the father of the petitioner filed the appeal before the first respondent dated 10.11.2008 in N.Dis.Nos.63451/2008 and 63452/2008 and it was returned for certain compliance on 26.11.2008 and after complying with the defects, it was represented before the first respondent on 21.01.2009 and due to return, it was again represented for the second time on 25.03.2009 in N.Dis.No.3964/2009 & 3965/2009 and thereafter, the revisional authority did not process and number the matter.