The Puttu Urchava Kattalai, vs Madurai Thennaga Vaniyar San

2026:MHC:3625
WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
WA(MD) No.500 of 2026 and CMP(MD) No.4492 of 2026
The Puttu Urchava Kattalai, Through its Trustee,
A.Venkateshkumar,
Puttu Thope Maid Road,
Madurai - 625 016.
... Appellant
- Vs. -
1. Madurai Thennaga Vaniyar Sangam,, Through its Secretary,
P.Murugan, No.23, Puttu Thopu Complex,
Puttu Thope Main Road, Madurai - 16.
2. The Commissioner, HR and CE Department,
Chennai.
3. The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department,
Chennai.
4. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Puttu Chockanathar Thirukovil, Madurai.
... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, against the order
dated 17.02.2026 in W.P.(MD).No.2180 of 2026
Page 1 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )

WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Kannan for R2 & R3
Special Government Pleader
Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J)
The writ appeal had been filed questioning the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 17.02.2026 in WP(MD) No.2180 of 2026, which writ
petition had been filed by the first respondent herein seeking a mandamus to
remove the lock and seal of the property in Puttu Thoppu Main Road at
Madurai and direct the third respondent, Puttu Urchava Kattalai, the
appellant herein to redeliver the possession of the Kalyana Mandapam and
execute fresh lease agreement with respect to the said property in
accordance with the order dated 25.08.2025 in SLP (Civil) No.22672 of
nd
2025 and order dated 16.08.2013 of the 2 respondent Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department, Madurai.
2. The first respondent was a tenant under the appellant herein. There
were efforts taken to determine the fair rent for the premises. The fair rent
Page 2 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )

WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
had also been determined. The first respondent had not paid the fair rent. As
on date, we are informed that there is due of Rs.38/- lakhs. The first
respondent challenged the fair rent determined by the HR&CE by filing the
writ petition.
3. The writ petition was pending for a quite long time. In the
meanwhile, since the fair rent was not paid and since there was default in
payment of rent, the appellant herein took possession of the property. Lock
and seal was also affixed on 18.03.2025 after following due procedure. The
Joint Commissioner, while determining the fair rent had mentioned as a
stray statement that if the first respondent herein is desirous of entering into
a fresh lease deed, then appropriate consideration would be shown for the
same. This would not indicate that they must be considered as a lessee.
They can only participate in any proposal to be considered as a lessee
among others. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also is quite clear on
that aspect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had only stated as follows:
“6.In our view, since the order passed by the learned
Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, the apprehension of the petitioner(s) is
unfounded. So long as the operative portion of the order
Page 3 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )

WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
passed by the Commissioner at Chennai as well as the writ
court operates, it is open to the petitioner(s) to avail its
benefit, if any provided.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had only stated that the first
respondent herein can avail the benefit of the order passed by the
Commissioner, if any provided. However, it must be stated that this would
not automatically mean that they must be continued as lessee without even
paying the lease amount and when they are in arrears of nearly about Rs.
38/- lakhs. They can only participate if it is opened up for a prospective
lessee to come forward to give appropriate bid. They did not participate.
They filed the writ petition to break open the lock and seal and hand over
delivery of the Kalyana Mandapam as a matter of right. The learned Single
Judge, unfortunately, in our opinion, has misdirected himself in examining
this issue.
5. We are also informed that subsequently, the appellant had permitted
the temple themselves to use the Kalyana Mandapam and to perform
marriages in the premises. This is all the more better because the revenue
Page 4 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )

WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
would go directly to the Temple and they need not await payment of lease
by anybody. The best step has been taken by the appellant and by the
temple authorities. We would only record that particular fact and set aside
the direction of the learned Single Judge.
5. The writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V,J.)
01.09.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
RR
Page 5 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )

WA(MD)No.500 of 2026
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J
RR
WA(MD) No.500 of 2026
01.09.2026
Page 6 of 6
( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:17:24 pm )