M. Idayathulla and 8 others vs The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer arulmighu Dhandayauthapani Thirukoil, Palani Dindigul District

The petitioners in these writ petitions are lessees in respect of vacant lands of the respondent Devasthanam, measuring about 10 feet X 10 feet

each in the elephant path (slaping path) in Palani Hills.

Admittedly, the lease expires today. As, the respondent Devasthanam do not propose to extend or renew the lease any longer, by impugned

notice dated 29.5.2000, required the petitioners to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the respective lands to the respondent Devasthanam

on or before 1.7.2000.

Aggrieved by the said notice dated 29.5.2000, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions to quash the same and to direct the respondent to

renew the lease in favour of the petitioners at a reasonable rate of rent per month.

Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan and Mr.K.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contend that the petitioners are in possession

and enjoyment of the respective lands for more than thirty years and that they are regularly paying the rent. It is further contended that the

requirement of pathway shops cannot be dispensed with in the temple area, and therefore, the respondent Devasthanam would, in any way, lease

out the premises to third parties, and in which event, the respondent Devasthanam would not be prejudiced by extending the lease or renewing the

same to the petitioners as the case may be at a reasonable rent, which would be paid by the petitioners themselves. It is also contended that the

impugned proceedings of the respondent requiring the petitioners to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the respective lands without

affording an alternative site, would otherwise deprive their livelihood, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, states that once the lease period is over, the

petitioners have no right either to seek for extension of the lease period or for renewal of the licence, as the respondent Devasthanam do not

propose to lease out the lands to any third party, nor to renew the same to the petitioners. According to Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior

counsel appearing for the respondent, the respondent Devasthanam require the impugned lands to extend the pathway leading to deity. It is also

contended that by leasing out these lands to the petitioners or to any third party, it would only cause inconvenience to the worshippers, and

therefore, it is decided by the respondent Devasthanam not to extend the lease or renew the lease or to lease out the impugned lands to any third

party in future in the larger interest of the worshippers who pass through the elephant path. Finally, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior

counsel, comes forward to permit the petitioners to continue in their respective places for a further period of 45 days from today, if the petitioners

given an undertaking to vacate themselves voluntarily and surrender vacant possession of the respective lands to the respondent Devasthanam.

I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

No doubt, the lease of the petitioners itself comes to an end today, and therefore, they have no right to compel the respondent Devasthanam to

renew the lease unless and otherwise the lease agreement provides for such renewal. As there is no automatic renewal, as per the terms of the

lease agreement, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no right to compel the respondent Devasthanam to renew the lease or

extend the period of lease from 1.7.2000. Since the petitioners have no right to continue from 1.7.2000, they are under an obligation to vacate and

surrender vacant possession to the respondent Devasthanam, otherwise, the respondent Devasthanam has right to call upon them to vacate and

surrender vacant possession by the impugned proceedings.

Further, I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the impugned proceedings. The contentions of the petitioners that they are in

possession of the respective lands for more than 30 years and therefore, the refusal to renew the lease without providing alternative lands would

deprive their livelihood violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, is also not tenable in law, as they do not have any subsisting right in

law, to continue in possession of their respective lands beyond 1.7.2000. It is not a case of refusal to renew the licence, but, it is a case of non-

renewal. The question of refusal comes only when the petitioners are entitled for renewal and the respondents are not willing to renew the same,

which is certainly subject to judicial view of this Court. But, in a case of non-renewal, where the petitioners have no right of renewal, particularly in

the context when the respondent-Devasthanam is not willing to renew the lease in the larger interest of the worshippers to provide more convenient

pathway to them, the question of deprival of livelihood of the petitioners does not come in, and therefore, I am not able to appreciate the

contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right conferred on the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

is violated.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in passing the impugned

proceedings.

However, in view of the stand taken by the respondent Devasthanam to permit the petitioners to continue in possession for another 45 days if

the petitioners voluntarily come forward to file an affidavit of undertaking to vacate the respective lands and hand over vacant possession of the

land to the respondent Devasthanam, the respondent is directed not to evict the petitioners from the respective lands provided the petitioners file an

independent and voluntary affidavit of undertaking as required by the respondent Devasthanam to the respondent and copies of the same shall be

produced to this Court within one week.

The disposal of the above writ petitions shall not stand in the way of the petitioners to make representations to the respondent Devasthanam

seeking an alternative place to continue their business in the respondent temple premises without causing any inconvenience to the respondent

Devasthanam or the worshippers and the same shall be considered on merits by the respondent Devasthanam within a reasonable time. It is also

made clear that the respondent Devasthanam also shall not either allot or lease out the impugned premises to any third party without considering

the requests of the petitioners or bringing the same for public auction after due notice to the petitioners.

These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.15162 and 15268 to 15275 of 2000 are closed.