Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court concerning a shop leased by a temple. The appellant, M.Parameswari, had filed W.P.(MD)No.5738 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Courtallam, and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kutralanatha Swamy Thirukovil to transfer the lease of shop No.106 at Keela Radha Veethi, Courtallam, Tenkasi District in her name by considering her representation dated 07.10.2024. The appellant had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.14164 of 2024 seeking a direction to receive arrears of rent for the same shop. By order dated 27.09.2024, a learned Single Judge dismissed that writ petition, holding that in the absence of any lease agreement, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief, but granted liberty to work out her remedy in the application for transfer of lease. The appellant was not the primary lessee under the respondents; the primary lessee was one Sudalai, and rental receipts continued to be issued in his name. The appellant's father was a friend of Sudalai and had entered into an agreement with him to hand over possession of the shop. Subsequently, disputes arose leading to registration of criminal cases of murder and attempt to murder. The appellant claimed possession of the shop but contended that unless the respondents recognised her tenancy, she could never claim any right to continue in possession or to pay rents. The core question was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to transfer a temple shop lease to a person who was not the primary lessee when proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 were pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE at Thoothukudi, and there was no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissal. The appellant argued that she was in possession and needed recognition of tenancy to assert any rights. The respondents submitted that proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 had been initiated and were pending before the Joint Commissioner, and that the matter was still fluid before the appropriate authority. They also pointed out that the same relief had been rejected earlier and there was no change in circumstances. The Division Bench noted that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed for absence of lease agreement, with liberty to work out the remedy. It observed that the appellant was not the primary lessee and rental receipts were issued in the name of Sudalai. The court further noted that proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 were pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE at Thoothukudi, and therefore the matter was still fluid before the appropriate authority. It held that it may not be proper to adjudicate the issue while statutory proceedings were pending and that there was no change in circumstances. The court found no reason to accede to the relief sought, dismissed the writ appeal, closed the connected miscellaneous petition, and made no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered by C.V. Karthikeyan J. on 03.08.2026.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus for Lease Transfer - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 78 - The appellant, not being the primary lessee and with rental receipts continuing in the name of one Sudalai, sought a mandamus to transfer the lease of a temple shop; the High Court held that when proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act are pending before the Joint Commissioner and there is no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissal, it would not adjudicate the issue; Held that the writ appeal stands dismissed (Paras 1-5). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Recognition of Tenancy - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 78 - The appellant claimed possession of the shop but needed recognition of tenancy by respondents to claim any right to continue in possession or pay rents; earlier writ petition was dismissed due to absence of lease agreement, with liberty to work out remedy; the court noted that the matter was still fluid before the appropriate authority and that earlier relief had been rejected; Held that no reason existed to accede to the relief sought (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the transfer of a temple shop lease in favor of a person who is not the primary lessee when proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 are pending before the Joint Commissioner.
Final Decision
The writ appeal was dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. There was no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mandamus cannot be issued to direct transfer of lease when statutory proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE Act
- 1959 are pending before authority
- Absence of lease agreement disentitles petitioner to relief
- Liberty granted earlier to work out remedy does not create right to transfer
- Non-recognition of tenancy when primary lessee remains on record
- Judicial restraint when matter is fluid before appropriate authority
