Madras High Court Dismisses Amrutanjan’s Plea Against Arrears Of Rent Worth Crores For Occupying Kapaleeswarar Temple Land
The Madras High Court was considering an appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge upholding insistence on payment of pre-deposit of the rent arrears for filing statutory appeal.
The Madras High Court has upheld an order mandating payment of a pre-deposit of the rent for entertaining the appeal filed by the Amrutanjan company in a rent dispute over its occupation of the land of Kapaleeswarar Temple in Mylapore. The High Court dismissed the company’s appeal against the order directing the levy of arrears, which ran into crores of rupees.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge, rejecting the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 34A(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Single Bench had upheld the power of the respondent authorities in insisting on payment of the pre-deposit of the rent for entertaining the statutory appeal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, “As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, if the plea of the appellant that the condition mandating pre-deposit is onerous is accepted, then the religious institutions, which heavily depend on such rental incomes, would not be able to maintain the properties and fulfill the religious duties.”
Advocate Bhagavath Krishnan PMN represented the Appellant, while Special Government Pleader N.R.R.Arun Natarajan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture of medicinal preparations, popularly known as ‘Amrutanjan’, came into possession of the property through assignment from the lessee, P.R.Sundera Iyer and had been in occupation of the property. It was paying the rent of Rs 1,400 for the last 99 years of the lease, which expired in August, 2000. The appellant was occupying an extent of about 14 grounds and 910 sq.ft. of land belonging to the Kapaleeswarar temple in Mylapore, situated in the heart of Chennai city.
Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner Executive Officer had sought to refix the rent on the basis of the fair rent index prevailing in the locality and had fixed the fair rent at Rs 3,30,832. The appellant did not come forward to pay the enhanced rent. Notice was issued, and thereafter the tenancy in favour of the appellant was terminated. The appellant then filed a petition challenging the alleged fixation of fair rent and the non-entertainment of the appeal without deposit of the lease rent as provided u/s 34-A (5) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. The Single Bench dismissed the same and held that the Fair Rent Committee, considering all the factors, including the place where the property is situated and also the extent of lands, which had been given on lease, which was terminated, had fixed the rent, which did not suffer the vice of illegality.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellant that the onerous condition of pre-deposit, especially when the demand notice levied enhanced rent retrospectively, imposed a huge financial burden on the appellant and was, therefore, arbitrary. As per the appellant, the levy could not be made retrospectively, as it ran to crores of rupees in the form of rent.
It was the case of the respondents that the appellant had been in occupation of land of an extent of 14 grounds and 910 sq ft on payment of a paltry rent of Rs 1,400 for more than a century, and from the date of enhancement, the appellant had not paid any money to the temple towards rent.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant was not the original lessee. The original lessee had assigned the lease rights to the appellant, but according to the Bench, the appellant, in the strict sense, was not a tenant.
The Bench further noticed that the appellant was not even a tenant, and it was recorded in the order passed by the Single Judge that the appellant had been evicted from the premises, and the second respondent had taken over possession of the lands. “That apart, as noted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been in occupation of 14 grounds and 910 sq.ft. by paying a paltry rent of Rs.1,400/- for more than a century. It is not the case of the appellant that before fixing fair rent no opportunity was afforded. The appellant, having participated in the proceedings, is now challenging the provision which empowers the authorities to insist on pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal”, it added.
The Bench upheld the rejection of the appellant’s contention by the Single Bench and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Amrutanjan Ltd. v. The Commissioner HR and CE Department (Case No.: W.A.No.205 of 2026)