Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1995 (MAD)

U. Santhosh v. Executive Officer, Kancheepuram

2013-06-13

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. These civil revision petitions are filed against the orders made in A.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2012 on the file of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai-34, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners under section 34(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 against the notice dated 15.09.2011 issued by the respondent herein, were dismissed. 2. The petitioners are tenants under the respondent temple in respect of premises measuring 52 sq.ft. and 823 sq.ft. respectively. The Fair Rent Fixation Committee fixed the rent at Rs.656/-p.m. and Rs.6,750/-p.m. respectively through proceedings dated 18.03.2002 and communicated the same to the petitioners also on 01.04.2002. 3. It is seen that before fixing the fair rent, the petitioners herein were heard on 18.03.2002 and even after passing of the said order fixing the fair rent and communicated the same to the petitioners as early as in the year 2002, they have not chosen to challenge the same. What was under challenge before the Commissioner of H.R & C.E. is against a notice issued by the respondent herein on 15.09.2011, calling upon the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent due to the temple till 30.06.2011. The Authority below considered the fact that the petitioners have not filed any appeal against the original order of fixing the fair rent and what was challenged is against a consequential notice issued by the respondent. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed holding the same were not maintainable. Challenging the said common order passed in the appeals, the present civil revision petitions are preferred before this Court. 4. Mrs. K.Bhawatharini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the fixation of fair rent done by the Committee was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act and even though the order was passed as early as in the year 2002, the petitioners were paying only the original rent prevailed before such fixation. The respondent temple also received the same continuously and therefore, the impugned notice cannot be issued. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the appeals preferred before the Commissioner are maintainable. I am unable to appreciate such contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, the order of fixation of fair rent came to be passed in the year 2002 and was communicated to the petitioners immediately. The said fact is not disputed. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the appeals preferred before the Commissioner are maintainable. I am unable to appreciate such contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, the order of fixation of fair rent came to be passed in the year 2002 and was communicated to the petitioners immediately. The said fact is not disputed. The contention of the tenants that they were paying the old rent and the same was also received by the temple, does not mean that the temple is not entitled to seek the arrears of rent as per order of fixation of fair rent. Therefore, the notice issued on 15.09.2011, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority, is only a consequential proceedings demanding the arrears of rent and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the consequential proceedings without challenging the original order of fixing the fair rent. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2010 (1) SCC 756 , Edukanti Kistamma v. S. Venkatareddy, has held at paragraph No.22 as follows: "22. It is a settled legal proposition that challenge to consequential order without challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential order may be examined (vide P. Chitharanja Menon v. A. Balakrishnan (1977) 3 SCC 255 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 378,; H.V. Pardasani v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 468 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 482; and Govt. of Maharashtra v. Deokar's Distillery (2003) 5 SCC 669 )." Therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeals and I find no illegality or irregularity in the said common order. Consequently, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to challenge the original order of fixation of the fair rent. It is open to the petitioners to file any such proceedings provided they are in accordance with law however subject to further satisfying the question of limitation as well. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.