Judgment : 1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the Nagercoil Club & S.M.R.V. Reading Room, which is a registered Society. In W.P.(MD) No.167 of 2013, the petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the notice, dated 05.01.2009, issued by the second respondent/the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Athimoola Vinayagar Temple, Ozhuginasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. By the said impugned demand notice, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.17,371/- per month with effect from 01.07.1998; Rs.20,437/- per month with effect from 01.11.2001; Rs.23,503/- per month with effect from 01.07.2004 and Rs.27,028/- per month with effect from 01.07.2007. 2. In W.P.(MD) No.15336 of 2012, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice, dated 23.08.2012, issued by the second respondent, by which the petitioner was directed to remit the total lease rent arrears, upto July, 2012, to the tune of Rs.36,91,904/- within a period of fifteen days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice, failing which informed the petitioner that action will be taken, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter it may be referred to as 'the Act'), treating the petitioner as an encroacher. Therefore, the decision to be arrived at in W.P.(MD) No.167 of 2013 would cover W.P.(MD) No.15336 of 2012, since the impugned order therein, dated 23.08.2012, is a consequential order to the impugned demand notice, dated 05.01.2009. 3. The petitioner would state that the Society was originally formed under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955) and was assigned registration No.77 of 1971, on 16.10.1971. Even much prior to the registration, the Society was carrying on it's activities from 21.07.1890 at Nagercoil, under the name of Thirumoolarangam, for the purpose of improving the standard of living, to inculcate reading and physical activity in the residents of the locality. It is stated that the petitioner Society was inaugurated by the then Maharaja of Travancore and several important personalities have been the members of the Society including the then Honourable Prime Minister Pandit Sri Jawaharlal Nehru. 4. It is stated that the petitioner Society was inaugurated by the then Maharaja of Travancore and several important personalities have been the members of the Society including the then Honourable Prime Minister Pandit Sri Jawaharlal Nehru. 4. The petitioner Society, as it stands now, entered into a lease with the second respondent Temple, in respect of the property, comprised in Survey No.15/2 of Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, measuring about 1 Acre and 17 Cents, which is presently in the heart of Nagercoil Town. It is further stated by the petitioner that with the consent of the second respondent Temple, they have put up a superstructure and provided various facilities to it's members for the purpose of playing indoor games. 5. When the second respondent Temple came under the control of the first respondent Department, during 1979, proceedings were initiated to evict the petitioner Society and even prior to that one of the trustees filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 1121 (Malayalam Era), on the file of the District Court, Nagercoil, for cancellation of the lease between the petitioner and the second respondent Temple, recovery of possession and arrears of rent. The said suit was dismissed on 24.11.1959 and as against which an appeal was preferred before this Court in A.S.No.151 of 1957, which ended in a compromise on 16.02.1960. Based on the said compromise, the rent was revised to Rs.40/- per month, later it was increased to Rs.80/- per month. 6. It is stated that the second respondent Temple filed a suit in O.S.No.406 of 1991, on the file of the Munsif Court, Nagercoil. However, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and after which there was a settlement between the petitioner and the second respondent and the rent was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month. It appears that from 1991 onwards the petitioner Society has been paying Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent for the total property, which is enjoyed by them, measuring 1 Acre 17 Cents, situated in the heart of the Nagercoil Town. Whileso, the second respondent raised the impugned demand, which is challenged in the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.167 of 2013. 7. Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Whileso, the second respondent raised the impugned demand, which is challenged in the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.167 of 2013. 7. Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. M. Natarajan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, made elaborate reference to the factual matrix and contended that the petitioner is carrying on it's activities for almost a century and several distinguished persons are using the facilities in the petitioner's Society and the second respondent unilaterally passed the impugned order, without affording any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry into the matter. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to raise the impugned demand and it is for the Committee, which has been constituted under the provisions of the Act and in this regard a reference was made to Section 34 (A) of the Act. Further, it is submitted that only after the Committee fixes the rent, the second respondent could issue a demand for the purpose of enforcing the order of the Committee and therefore the Executive Officer has no jurisdiction. 8. Mr. K. Sathyasingh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, submitted that the petitioner is occupying the prime property situated in the heart of Nagercoil Town and paying Rs.1,000/- towards rent and the value of the property as on date is Rs.2,09,50,810/- and the rent paid by the petitioner for such property is grossly disproportionate and the attitude of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. 9. Further, by relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Joint Commissioner, by Order dated 24.05.2008, permitted the second respondent to collect the fair rent from 2001, the increase being by 15%, and therefore a demand notice was issued and the notice has been given to the petitioner after complying with the principles of natural justice. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The short question, which falls for consideration, is whether the second respondent can fix the rent for the property owned by them, which is presently in the occupation of the petitioner and the second question would be whether the Joint Commissioner could direct fixation of rent and direct the second respondent to recover the same in terms of Section 34(A) of the Act from the petitioner. 12. 12. Section 34(A) of the Act deals with fixation of lease rent and it envisages that the lease rent shall be fixed by a Committee consisting of the Joint Commissioner, the Executive Officer or the Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustee, as the case may be, of the religious institution and the District Registrar of the Registration Department in the district concerned taking into account the prevailing market rental value and the guidelines, as may be prescribed and such lease rent shall be re-fixed in the like manner once in three years by the said Committee. As per the explanation, “prevailing market rental value” means the amount of rent paid for similar types of properties situated in the locality where the immovable property of the religious institution is situated. 13. Thus, the Committee, after considering and fixing the lease rent, shall intimate the lessee through the Executive Officer or the Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 34(A) of the Act. Admittedly, this procedure has not been followed. Further, no record was placed by the first respondent before this Court to show that before the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, passed the order on 24.05.2008, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity. Therefore, this Court could safely conclude that the procedure adopted, while fixing the lease rent, is not in accordance with the prescription under the Act and there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 14. In the light of the above, the impugned demand notice deserves to be interfered. However, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is in occupation of a considerable extent of the property, which is said to be located in the heart of Nagercoil Town, having locational and other advantages. Therefore, pending decision of the Committee, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should pay the enhanced rent than what has been paid now, which is said to be Rs.1,000/- per month from 1991 onwards, and there has been no revision of rent. 15. From a reading of Section 34(A)(1) of the Act, it is seen that the procedure is somewhat akin to the procedure under the rent control legislation, while fixing the fair rent. However, it appears to be a more simpler procedure, where all stake-holders are concerned with the matter. 15. From a reading of Section 34(A)(1) of the Act, it is seen that the procedure is somewhat akin to the procedure under the rent control legislation, while fixing the fair rent. However, it appears to be a more simpler procedure, where all stake-holders are concerned with the matter. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned demand and remitting the matter to the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay the lease rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from February, 2009 onwards. This date is fixed taking note of the fact that the revised demand was issued during February, 2009 and the petitioner did not challenge the same immediately and has filed the writ petition only during 2012. Therefore, it would be fair and reasonable for the petitioner to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from February, 2009 till today and continue to pay at the rate of Rs.10,000/-without prejudice to their rights till the Committee constituted under Section 34(A) of the Act decide the lease rent to be paid by the petitioner. Sofar as the current rent is concerned, the petitioner shall pay the same to the second respondent Temple, on or before 7th of every month and so far as the arrears is concerned i.e. from February 2009 till date, the same shall be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. All the payments made by the petitioner pursuant to this direction is without prejudice to the rights and contention of the petitioner. With the above directions, the matter is remanded to the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, for fixation of the lease rent in accordance with Section 34(A) of the Act. In the event of default being committed in complying with the conditional order, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the H.R. & C.E., Act. 16. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.