ORDER : Prayers:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue Writs of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 09.04.2013 in A.P. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2011 of the First Respondent and the notice dated 19.01.2011 of the Second Respondent, and quash the same. Heard Mrs. AL.Ganthimathi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First Respondent and Mr. S.Sithirai Anandan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are tenants in respect of the property of the Second Respondent, who had by proceedings dated 19.01.2011 determined the fair rent for the period from 01.11.2001 to 30.12.2010 for the respective portions occupied by them, under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which has been confirmed by order dated 09.04.2013 in appeal in A.P. Nos. 25 to 29 of 2011 by the First Respondent and has been impeached in these Writ Petitions. 3. The primordial contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that though Section 34-A of the Act does not expressly contemplate any prior notice to the tenants before determining the fair rent for the premises occupied by them, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [2009 (3) LW 729] has explained the procedure to be followed in that regard as extracted below :- "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 Sanmar Limited -vs- The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (4) CTC 793 ), 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 Chemplast Sanmar Limited -vs- The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (4) CTC 793 ), 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 Limited -vs- The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (4) CTC 793 ). 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 Limited -vs- The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu ( 2008 (4) CTC 793 ). 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 34-A(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:- 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:- 17. It was clarified that it is not necessary for the lessees to appear in person and that it is sufficient for them to submit their written objections to the temple authorities, who will take note of the objection before fixing the final rent and then it will go before the committee which will pass the order as per sub section 2 of Section 34-A of the Act for fixing the lease rent and intimate the same to the lessee. Therefore, the committee consisting of the Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer or trustees or Chairman of the Board of Trustees as the case may have to take note of the prevailing market value and the guidelines and then they will fix the lease rent or refix the lease rent as the case may be once in three years. Therefore, the committee consisting of the Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer or trustees or Chairman of the Board of Trustees as the case may have to take note of the prevailing market value and the guidelines and then they will fix the lease rent or refix the lease rent as the case may be once in three years. The explanation to sub Section 1 of Section 34-A of the Act also makes it clear that what is meant by 'prevailing market value'. The Executive Officer thereafter shall fix the lease rent. He is given the discretionary power to take note of what the Committee had recommended and then he shall fix the lease rent and intimate the same to the lessee. By virtue of the circular extracted above, the evidence submitted by the lessee will form part of the material for determining the lease rent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that lessees have been given sufficient opportunity to place before the committee the materials regarding fair rental value and it is only thereafter, that the lease rent would be fixed. Therefore, the complaint that principle of natural justice is violated, has been answered by the proceedings dated 2.2.2009. The direction contained therein shall be compulsorily followed." It is highlighted that the said procedure has not been followed by the Second Respondent in these cases and the First Respondent has erroneously held as if opportunity had been granted to the Petitioners for raising their objections, but they had failed to avail the same before the fixation of fair rent for the respective premises occupied by them. 4. Though Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent refers to another order dated 19.01.2011 said to have been sent to each of the Petitioners and contends that after receiving their objections on the same day, the final decision has been taken, it is not possible to accept the same in the absence of the production of the written objections said to have been made by the Petitioners in these cases. That apart, on a bare reading of both set of orders passed by the Second Respondent on 19.01.2011 would reflect that it is the final decision taken fixing the fair rent and there is nothing to infer that it is in the nature of any show cause notice enabling the Petitioners to submit their objections for the proposed increase in the fair rent for the respective premises occupied by them. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent cited judgment of this Court in P.Jayanthi -vs- the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai (Order dated 29.09.2021 made in W.P. No. 19258 of 2021) to highlight that there is a distinction between show cause notice and demand notice and the Petitioners in these cases could have treated the orders dated 19.01.2011 issued to them as demand notices and raised their objections and having failed to resort to such recourse, they cannot have any grievance for the lawful entitlement of the owner of the property to receive commensurate rental income based on Government Orders issued in that regard. Inasmuch as the said orders dated 19.01.2011 issued by the Second Respondent, do not, by any stretch of imagination, seek any objections from the Petitioners for the fixation of fair rent, it is not possible to accept such claim. That apart, when the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Order dated 02.02.2009 has specifically issued detailed guidelines to be followed before fixing the fair rent, which has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 3 LW 729], the said contention raised cannot be countenanced. It was incumbent upon the Second Respondent to strictly carry out the said exercise and its failure to do so would necessarily vitiate the decision taken. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 09.04.2013 passed by the First Respondent affirming the fixation of fair rent for the respective premises occupied by the Petitioners cannot be sustained and have to be set aside so as to decide the matter afresh by the Second Respondent following the prescribed procedure in the Government Order dated 02.02.2009 as held in the decision in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2009 (3) LW 729) by the Division Bench of this Court. 6. 6. It is next pleaded by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the fair rent could not have been fixed with retrospective effect. In this context, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent refers to the G.O. Ms. No. 353 dated 04.06.1999 to highlight that it was incumbent upon all the religious institutions across the State governed by the Act to have fixed the fair rent for the premises occupied by their tenants as a matter of policy, having due regard to various Government Orders passed for the same with effect from 01.01.2001, which has been upheld in the decision in K.Narayanan -vs- the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE (Order dated 20.12.2006 made in W.P. No. 23531 of 2004) by this Court in the following words:- “7. The short point for determination is, whether the respondents can demand the enhanced rent from 01.11.2001? 8. Perused the G.O.Ms. No. 353, dated 04.06.1999. 9. A perusal of the Government Order discloses that the tenants and the lessees, occupying the temple properties, are not paying proper rent. Hence, revised guidelines have been issued for fixation of fair rent. It is also stated that the enhancement of rent shall be made once in three years at 33.3%. While so, the Government issued another order, dated 08.08.2001, addressing the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner, HR&CE, referring the earlier G.O.Ms. No.353, dated 04.06.1999, and two other letters of the Government and directed the Commissioner to implement G.O. Ms. No. 353, dated 04.06.1999, with effect from 01.11.2001. 10. A combined reading of both the orders of the Government clarifies that the respondents ought to have enhanced the rent soon after the issuance of G.O. on 04.06.1999, but they did not do so. Therefore, a reminder has been issued on 08.08.2001, directing the respondents to implement the orders of the G.O.Ms. No.353 from 01.11.2001. If the enhanced rent is fixed from 04.06.1999, the petitioner, who has been forced to pay the enhanced rent, very fortunately, could gain two years from enhancing the rent. Now, the rent is enhanced after following various formalities and it is implemented strictly in accordance with the directions of the Government with effect from 01.11.2001. 11. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the same. In fact, the petitioner is the beneficiary for not getting the enhanced rent soon after the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 353, dated 04.06.1999. 11. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the same. In fact, the petitioner is the beneficiary for not getting the enhanced rent soon after the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 353, dated 04.06.1999. The petitioner, having gained two years, cannot be permitted to gain further and he is ready to pay the enhanced rent from the date of G.O. That itself indicates that the petitioner is not losing anything financially. The premises is located at the heart of the city. When the petitioner is earning on the temple property, it is his duty to pay the minimum rent which is fair rent.” The Division Bench of this court in K.Narayanan -vs- the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE (Order dated 15.03.2007 made in W.A. No. 425 of 2007) has affirmed the said decision observing as follows:- “2. We tried to find out the nexus of fixing the date such as 01.11.2001 for payment of enhanced rent. It was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that vide G.O. Ms. No. 353, Tamil Development and Culture, Hindu Religious Department, dated 04.06.1999 the State Government issued revised guidelines for enhancement of rent at the rate of 33.3% once three years. While so, the Government issued another order dated 08.08.2001 addressing the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner, HR & CE referring the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 353, Tamil Development and Culture, Hindu Religious Department, dated 04.06.1999 and two other letters of the Government and directed the Commissioner to implement the said decision dated 04.06.1999 with effect from 1.11.2001. The authority should have implemented the order way back in the year 1999 but it was implemented from the subsequent date that is with effect from 1.11.2001. In view of the aforesaid fact and that the property belongs to Devasthanam (temple), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.” It has been brought to notice that in G.O. Ms. No. 456 dated 09.11.2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed orders for ensuring that the fair rent is determined for all the properties belonging to the religious institutions, which have been leased on rent with effect from 01.01.2001, in terms of the relevant Government Orders issued in that regard from time to time. No. 456 dated 09.11.2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed orders for ensuring that the fair rent is determined for all the properties belonging to the religious institutions, which have been leased on rent with effect from 01.01.2001, in terms of the relevant Government Orders issued in that regard from time to time. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to accede to the claim that there cannot be any fixation of fair rent with retrospective effect, though it is hastened to clarify that the same would have to be made strictly in accordance with relevant Government Orders in that regard. 7. Another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that there has not been any proper measurement of the properties before fixation of the fair rent in these cases. Inasmuch as the letter dated 02.02.2009 from the Government of Tamil Nadu specifically provides that the extent of the land occupied by the respective tenants would have to be specified while calling for objections from them, the Second Respondent has to mention the extent of the land in occupation of the respective Petitioners in the notices issued before fixation of fair rent for the respective premises occupied by them, and in turn, while submitting their objections, the Petitioners would have to show the actual extent held by them with supporting materials, if they do not accept the measurements as claimed by the Second Respondent. While taking final decision, the Second Respondent, after proper verification with specific details, has to advert the correct extent of land in occupation of the respective tenants for fixation of fair rent for the property leased to them. 8. It is brought to notice that at the time of admission on 22.05.2013 this Court had passed the following interim order:- "2. There shall be an order of interim stay on condition that the Petitioner in each of the Petitions shall deposit 25% of the amount claimed by the Respondent department within a period of four week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner in each of the Petitions is also further directed to continue to pay the 25% of the enhanced rent on or before 05th of every succeeding English calendar month. The Petitioner in each of the Petitions is also further directed to continue to pay the 25% of the enhanced rent on or before 05th of every succeeding English calendar month. Failure to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the order of interim stay granted today shall stand vacated automatically." Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been making payment of the enhance amount of monthly rent in the aforesaid manner and that the same arrangement may continue to be in operation till a final decision is taken by the Second Respondent in fixing the fair rent for the premises occupied by the respective Petitioners and necessary appropriations could be then made. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Second Respondent on 19.01.2011, which have been confirmed in appeal in A.P. Nos. 25 to 29 of 2011 by the First Respondent on 09.04.2013, are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Second Respondent to be decided afresh following the prescribed procedure in the Government Letter dated 02.02.2009 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (2009 (3) LW 729) for fixation of fair rent of the respective premises occupied by each of the Petitioners from 01.11.2001 onwards, and the Petitioners shall continue to pay 25% of the enhanced rent in terms of the interim orders passed in these Writ Petitions till that exercise is completed, when necessary appropriation shall be made for the same and the arrears in the differential amount of rent remaining due shall be paid by the Petitioners within a period of three months thereafter. 10. In the upshot, these Writ Petitions are ordered the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 11. 10. In the upshot, these Writ Petitions are ordered the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 11. Before parting with this case, it must be observed that though the Division Bench of this Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 3 LW 729] has found that the procedure for fixation of fair rent in Section 34-A of the Act does not expressly satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice, the same have been read into the statutory provision accepting that the Governmental Order dated 02.02.2009 contains necessary instructions affording prior opportunity to the tenants before fair rent is fixed and in that backdrop, the statutory provision was not declared unconstitutional. However, judicial notice must be taken that even after the said binding decision, in a large number of cases including the present one, the required opportunity to the tenants before fixing fair rent has not been provided by the concerned authorities leading to litigations and protraction of proceedings, which ultimately deprive the Temples of timely receipt of income. As it has been brought to notice that the Government of Tamil Nadu intends to make amendments to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and proposals in that regard have been called in Letter in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 57764/2021/D5 dated 30.08.2022 by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, it is hoped that the said lacunae in Section 34-A of the Act would also be duly examined and necessary amendments to provide a fair procedure affording opportunity to the tenants before fixation of fair rent is included fulfilling the requirements of the principles of natural justice so that unnecessary litigation could be avoided and there could be expeditious recovery of rental income to the Temples concerned.