UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Affirms Ejectment of Tenants from Temple Properties; Allows Conditional Occupation for Six Months

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, has affirmed the ejectment of tenants from shops located within the premises of Arulmighu Dhandayuthpani Swamy Temple, Palani. The tenants, declared as encroachers following the termination of their lease/licence, were ordered to vacate the premises, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

The core legal issue pertained to the termination of lease/licence of tenants in temple properties and their subsequent declaration as encroachers under the Act. The Supreme Court's decision was crucial in determining the balance between the rights of the temple authorities as landlords and the tenants occupying the shops.

The case involved various tenants, who, after the expiry of their lease/licence period, were declared as encroachers and faced orders of ejectment. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court following the affirmation of the ejectment order by the High Court.

Justice Sanjay Karol, in his judgement, meticulously addressed the nuances of the case:

Ejectment Orders: The Court affirmed the ejectment orders for 19 tenants who failed to clear rent arrears, thereby authorizing the temple authorities to initiate possession proceedings.

Conditional Occupation: For the remaining 51 tenants, the Court permitted an additional six-month occupation under specific conditions. These conditions included adherence to revised rent rates of 2015, no property damage, compliance with municipal by-laws, and clearance of statutory dues. Notably, for the 280 days impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, tenants are required to pay only 50% of the agreed rent.

Future Development Rights: The judgement also provided for preferential treatment to these 51 tenants in the event of future development of the property by the temple authorities, contingent on their participation in the allotment process and matching the highest bid price.

Compliance and Undertaking: Tenants are directed to file an undertaking agreeing to these terms within three weeks, failing which they may face ejectment proceedings and potential contempt actions.

Concluding the judgement, the Court ordered the disposal of all petitions and applications based on the agreed terms. This resolution marks a significant step in the judicial handling of disputes involving religious institutions and tenancy rights.

Date of Decision: February 23, 2024.

Balasubramani Etc. vs The Tamil Nadu Government Represented

Latest Legal News