Supreme Court resolves eviction dispute of temple tenants in Tamil Nadu: K. Balasubramani vs. The Tamil Nadu Government (2024) INSC 140 (23 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 140
Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a long-standing dispute between temple authorities and tenants be resolved amicably? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving tenants of shops owned by a temple in Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolved around the eviction of tenants who were declared encroachers after their lease period expired. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, disposed of the matter based on mutually agreeable terms between the parties. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The case involves tenants who were inducted into various shops owned by the Arulmighu Dhandayuthpani Swamy Temple, Palani. The temple is managed by the Tamil Nadu Government under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. After the expiry of their original lease/license periods, the tenants were declared encroachers under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed this decision, directing the tenants to hand over possession of the premises to the temple authorities. The tenants then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed the order of eviction passed by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The High Court directed the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Aggrieved by this order, the tenants approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework in this case is the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, specifically Section 78, which deals with the eviction of encroachers from properties of religious institutions.

Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 states:

“78. Eviction of encroachers. – (1) Where the Trustee of any religious institution has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon any land, building, tank, well or other property belonging to the religious institution, he may, whether or not, such person claims any right in such property, make an application to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the religious institution is situated, for an order directing such person to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the property to the Trustee.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were primarily focused on reaching a mutually agreeable solution. The tenants, who were declared encroachers, sought to continue their occupation of the shops, while the temple authorities aimed to regain possession for development purposes. The Court facilitated discussions between the parties, leading to a settlement.

The arguments were not detailed in the judgment, as the matter was resolved through mutual agreement. However, the core contention of the tenants was against the eviction order passed by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The landlords, on the other hand, sought to implement the eviction order and regain possession of the premises.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for adjudication, as the matter was resolved through a settlement between the parties. The primary issue was the eviction of the tenants who were declared encroachers under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific case laws or legal authorities. The decision was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, rather than a detailed legal analysis.

Judgment

The Court affirmed the order of ejectment passed by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, the Court disposed of the petitions based on a mutually agreed settlement between the parties. The terms of the settlement are as follows:

• The order of ejectment stands affirmed.
• 19 tenants were directed to be evicted forthwith.
• 51 tenants were allowed to occupy the premises for a further period of six months, until July 31, 2024, subject to certain conditions.
• These 51 tenants must pay rent at the rates revised in 2015, not 2018.
• These 51 tenants must clear all arrears of rent/damages/mesne profit within four months.
• These 51 tenants shall not cause any damage to the properties or create any encumbrance.
• These 51 tenants shall use the property in accordance with municipal by-laws.
• These 51 tenants shall clear all statutory dues before handing over possession.
• These 51 tenants shall pay 50% of the agreed rent/charges for 280 days during the COVID-19 pandemic, starting from March 20, 2020.
• If the landlord develops the property, these 51 tenants will be given preferential treatment, subject to participating in the allotment process and matching the highest bid.
• If any of these terms are violated, the landlord can initiate eviction proceedings and contempt proceedings.
• The landlord shall not cause any hindrance in the peaceful occupation of the premises by these tenants.
• All pending litigation between the parties in relation to the premises shall stand closed.
• The tenants shall file an undertaking before the Court agreeing to these terms within three weeks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the mutual agreement between the parties to resolve the long-standing dispute. The Court aimed to balance the interests of the temple authorities in regaining possession of their property for development and the tenants’ need for a reasonable time to vacate the premises. The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tenants’ ability to fully utilize their shops.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of resolving disputes through amicable settlements, especially in cases involving long-standing issues. The Court also took into account the practical difficulties faced by the tenants during the pandemic and provided them with a reasonable time to vacate the premises. The settlement ensures that the temple authorities can proceed with their development plans while protecting the interests of the tenants to a certain extent.

“With respect to 19 tenants…it shall be open for the landlord to forthwith initiate proceedings seeking possession in accordance with law.”

“With respect to the remaining 51 tenants…the petitions are disposed of on the following mutually agreed terms…allowed to occupy the premises for a further period of six months.”

“These tenants shall be liable to pay rent as it stood revised in the year 2015 and not in the year 2018.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment, as the decision was based on a mutually agreed settlement.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court affirmed the eviction order passed by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
• 19 tenants were directed to be evicted immediately.
• 51 tenants were allowed to occupy the premises for a further period of six months, until July 31, 2024, subject to certain conditions.
• The Court emphasized the importance of resolving disputes through mutual agreements.
• The judgment provides a framework for the eviction of encroachers from properties of religious institutions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the 51 tenants to file an undertaking before the Court agreeing to the terms of the settlement within three weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court upheld the eviction order but allowed a conditional extension of stay to some tenants based on a mutually agreed settlement. This case does not establish any new legal principles but reinforces the importance of amicable settlements in resolving disputes, especially those involving religious institutions and their properties. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions based on a mutually agreeable settlement between the temple authorities and the tenants. While affirming the eviction order, the Court allowed 51 tenants to occupy the premises for six more months, subject to certain conditions, and directed 19 tenants to be evicted forthwith. This decision highlights the Court’s approach to resolving disputes through amicable settlements, balancing the interests of all parties involved.

Category

Parent Category: Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Child Category: Section 78, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Parent Category: Property Law
Child Category: Eviction
Parent Category: Temple Law
Child Category: Temple Property Disputes

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was the eviction of tenants from shops owned by a temple, who were declared encroachers after their lease period expired.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court affirmed the eviction order but allowed 51 tenants to occupy the premises for six more months based on a mutual agreement, while directing 19 tenants to be evicted forthwith.

Q: What is Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959?
A: Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 deals with the eviction of encroachers from properties of religious institutions.

Q: What are the conditions for the 51 tenants to stay for six months?
A: The 51 tenants must pay rent at the rates revised in 2015, clear all arrears, not cause any damage to the properties, and hand over possession by July 31, 2024.

Q: What happens if the 51 tenants violate the terms of the agreement?
A: If any of the terms are violated, the landlord can initiate eviction proceedings and contempt proceedings.