JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 02.08.2016 in Moo.Mu.No.4681/2016/A4 passed by the second respondent along with the annexure signed by the Committee consisting of Respondents 2 to 4 fixing fair rent and to quash the same. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 18.09.2020 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.) 1. W.P.(MD)No.15667 of 2017 has been filed challenging the order of second respondent, dated 02.08.2016, whereby, the 2nd respondent has fixed fair rent payable by the petitioner under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 2. W.P.(MD)No.14007 of 2020 has been filed challenging the order of 3rd respondent, dated 18.09.2020, whereby, the 3rd respondent has cancelled the rental agreement with the petitioner and to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 20.10.2020. 3. Heard Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.P. Narayanakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and Mr.S.Manohar, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has fixed the fair rent without hearing the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the judgment of Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association vs The State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2009 (6) CTC 512, wherein, the Honourable Division Bench, following the guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, held that principles of natural justice will be violated, if sufficient opportunity is not granted to the lessee before fixing of fair rent under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The relevant portions of the order are extracted hereunder: 14. PLEA REGARDING NATURAL JUSTICE: The provision as it stands affords no opportunity to the lessee before the rent is fixed. It is at the time of the appeal that hearing is provided. In CHEMPLAST (cited supra), the Division Bench held, "................ The relevant portions of the order are extracted hereunder: 14. PLEA REGARDING NATURAL JUSTICE: The provision as it stands affords no opportunity to the lessee before the rent is fixed. It is at the time of the appeal that hearing is provided. In CHEMPLAST (cited supra), the Division Bench held, "................ In any event, as stated by Sir William Wade, when natural justice was violated at the first stage, it cannot be held that a fair appeal can cure such an unfair trial. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V. L.K.Ratna, AIR 1987 SC 71 , assumes greater significance inasmuch as an Appeal cannot be an overall substitute in respect of the breach of fundamental procedure committed in the original proceedings. To strengthen the above principle, an English decision reported in Leary V. National Union of Vehicle Builders, 1971 Chncellory 34 can be aptly quoted, wherein Megarry, J, has held that, as a general rule, a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in the appellate body. " Applying the above well established principles to the case on hand, the violation of principles of natural justice which had occurred at the level of the original authority cannot be said to have been cured at the level of the Appellate Authority. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the order of the first respondent cannot be said to have set right the violation committed at the level of the original authority. Since the petitioner is entitled to substantiate its stand that the consent obtained by it in the order dated 5.5.2006/16.11.1998 was passed on the real claim that the existing power plant operated by diesel is going to be operated in future by the usage of coal and that the same cannot be construed as a new power plant, in all fairness, the first respondent after reaching the conclusion that the Pollution Control Board breached the principles of natural justice ought to have set aside the order dated 22.1.2008 and remitted the matter back to the Pollution Control Board for fresh hearing...................... " 15. The grievance regarding lack of opportunity must be accepted. We agree with the view expressed in CHEMPLAST SANMAR case. But, this defect is cured by the proceedings dated 2.2.2009. Originally by proceedings in Na.Ka.NO. " 15. The grievance regarding lack of opportunity must be accepted. We agree with the view expressed in CHEMPLAST SANMAR case. But, this defect is cured by the proceedings dated 2.2.2009. Originally by proceedings in Na.Ka.NO. 40651/2008/M3 dated 18.7.2008, the Government laid down guidelines for determination of lease rent and also directed that the Executive Officer should inform the lessee, the lease rent as determined as per Section 34A(2) of the Act. The Government also noted the fact that though 34 A of the Act had come into force on 10.11.2003, certain guidelines had not been followed by the committee, while determining the lease rent and the defects are as follows:- “TAMIL” 16. The Government also noted that if guidelines are not followed, then the lease rent fixed by the committee is quashed either in appellate proceedings or by proceedings before the High Court wherein deficiency are pointed out. It was also noted that this only leads to the delay and loss to the lease rent for the temple and therefore, three strict guidelines were issued and it was also indicated that if they were not followed, stringent action would be initiated. Following this, further proceedings dated 2.2.2009 as per which, additional and clarificatory guidelines were issued and therefore, it is found that opportunity of raising objections is given to the lessee. The proceedings dated 2.2.2009 reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent before this Court, they have contended that before fixing of fair rent, there is no necessity for them to afford an opportunity to the petitioner under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 6. Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, has been interpreted in the aforesaid Honourable Division Bench judgment, wherein, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that principles of natural justice will be violated, if sufficient opportunity is not granted to the lessee before fixing of fair rent. Therefore, the contention of the 2nd respondent in this Writ Petition will have to be necessarily rejected by this Court in view of the decision of Honourable Division Bench of this Court, referred to supra. 7. The petitioner is occupying an extent of 8550 Sq.ft., and the property is situated at S.No.93, Sammapattipuram Hamlet, Ponmeni Village, Madurai District. It is a commercial area. 7. The petitioner is occupying an extent of 8550 Sq.ft., and the property is situated at S.No.93, Sammapattipuram Hamlet, Ponmeni Village, Madurai District. It is a commercial area. The existing rent payable by the petitioner prior to the fixation of fair rent was Rs.2,500/- per month. The property being situated in the heart of Madurai town, this Court can take judicial notice of the same. Since the property situated in the heart of Madurai, the existing rent paid by the petitioner is a paltry sum and it has to be necessarily enhanced. Whether it has to be enhanced as per the impugned order or not is for the Committee comprising of the members, who are respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, as prescribed under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to decide. 8. However, as an interim measure, considering the fact that the petitioner is occupying a large extent of temple land measuring an extent of 8550 sq.ft., the petitioner will have to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. It also admitted by the petitioner that for the past five years, he has not been paying the rent to the respondent temple. Therefore, as on date, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- as arrears of rent to the temple calculated at Rs.18,000/- per month, without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and contentions before the Committee, as and when they consider the matter afresh, as directed by this Court in this order. However, before the Committee, under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hears the matter, the petitioner will have to be necessarily pay the amount fixed by this Court as arrears of rent. 9. For the foregoing reasons, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Committee under Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 before fixing of fair rent, as per the impugned order, the impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.15667 of 2017 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Committee comprising of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for fresh consideration and it is made clear that only on payment of a sum of Rs.10,80,000/-, by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Committee shall decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law and fix the fair rent payable by the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to pay the sum of Rs.10,80,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the fair rent fixed by the 2nd respondent under the impugned order shall become due and payable by him and no further indulgence can be granted by this Court. On payment of aforesaid amount, the Committee shall fix the fair rent after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing within a period of four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, W.P.(MD)No.15667 of 2017 is disposed of. 10. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.14007 of 2020 is filed challenging the consequential notice pursuant to the impugned order, which is the subject matter in W.P.(MD)No.15667 of 2017. In view of the final order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15667 of 2017, the consequential notice, dated 18.09.2020, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.14007 of 2020 is also quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.