V BABU Vs. E MANOKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners against the order of the first respondent, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board in Na.Ka.No.63808/03/R.2 dated 13.02.2004 and in Na.Ka.84424/03/R.2 dated 24.01.2004 and the consequential order of the second respondent, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Sundararaja Perumal Thirukoil, Alathur, Choolai, Chennai dated 23.03.2004 and also for directions to respondents to execute and register sale deed in favour of the petitioner in WP.No.2509 of 2005 in respect of the land measuring 881 sq.ft. in door No.73/32, Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai 102, as per the decree in CMA.No.212 of 1983 dated 31.10.1985 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and in favour of the Writ petitioner in W.P.No.2510 of 2005 in respect of land measuring 1383 sq.ft in door No.70/30 Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai 102, as per the decree in CMA.No.209 of 1983 dated 31.10.2005 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) IN WP.No.2509 of 2005, the petitioner's father's elder sister Chellammal, became a tenant under the second respondent Temple in respect of 881 sq.ft. in Door No.73/32 Arimuthu Maistry Street also called Sundararaja Perumal Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 102. The second respondent, Temple has filed an ejectment suit in O.S.No.4072 of 1979 on the file of Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. After receiving the summons in the suit, the said Chellammal filed I.A.No.13647 of 1979 under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act,1921 (in short, "the Act") to convey the property in her name for a sum to be determined. The Commissioner appointed has determined the amount at Rs.5,506.25, which was paid before the Court as per the instalments permitted. As against the said order in the interlocutory application, the second respondent, Executive Officer of the Temple has filed CMA.No.212 of 1983 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. IN the appeal stage, the extent was determined as 881 sq.ft. and according to the petitioner, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6422.49 and he has paid the difference in amount of Rs.916.24 before the date fixed by the Court, which was 30.03.1986.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.P.Sukumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that first of all, the writ petitions are not maintainable. His submission is that Section 9 of the Act confers right on the tenant to get the portion in his occupation purchased from the landlord on the price to be fixed. This right is a personal right of the tenant, who is in physical possession as tenant. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are not the tenants under the second respondent at all and this fact has been admitted by the petitioners. Admittedly, in respect of WP.No.2509 of 2005, the tenant was one Chellammal and in respect of WP.No.2510 of 2005 the tenant was one Rajammal and the petitioners are not even the legal heirs of the tenants and the petitioners are only claiming to be the relatives of the tenants based on the agreement stated to have been executed by the tenant in one case and by the legal heirs of the tenant in the other case.