May 03 2016 : The Times of India (Chennai)
Court refuses to let tenant of temple rebuild Adyar house
Manish Raj
|
A court here has refused permission to carry out repairs and new construction to a tenant residing on a property in the city belonging to the famous Arunachaleswarar Temple of Tiruvannamalai.The temple authorities said the temple had a property measuring 1,800 sq ft on Arunachalapuram 2nd street, Adyar. It was rented to M Sivasamy in 1982. As Sivasamy was irregular in paying rent, the arrears amounted to `89,690. After Sivasamy died, his son S Ramana was trying to construct an illegal structure without the temple's permission.The authorities then approached police, who asked them to move a civil court. So they filed a case in a trial court.
Denying the arguments, Ramana said he was a tenant on the property over which his father had entered into a lease agreement with the temple in 1982 and constructed a house after taking the permission. During his lifetime, Ramana's father was regular in paying the lease rent. Since his father's death in 1990, Ramana had been living in the house. As the house was dilapidated, and its roof leaked, he wanted to demolish it and construct a new one. The temple authorities , however, wrongly said he had not paid rent amount and moved the court.
In fact, he had sought permission for the reconstruction and was awaiting the temple' nod, Ramana said. Because of the rain, hehad to start construction and raised pillars from the foundation before receiving the court's notice, said Ramana.
The trial court allowed the temple's petition, following which Ramana moved the court of fifth addition judge, S Senthil Kumaresan.As the temple did not provide permission to Ramana, any construction on the land would be illegal, the judge said.As Ramana had no prima facie case, the trial court was right in allowing the temple's petition. The trial court also found that if a new concrete structure put up it would be difficult for the authorities to evict Ramana. The judge then refused permission for new concrete construction and repair work till disposal of the suit. Chennai:
Denying the arguments, Ramana said he was a tenant on the property over which his father had entered into a lease agreement with the temple in 1982 and constructed a house after taking the permission. During his lifetime, Ramana's father was regular in paying the lease rent. Since his father's death in 1990, Ramana had been living in the house. As the house was dilapidated, and its roof leaked, he wanted to demolish it and construct a new one. The temple authorities , however, wrongly said he had not paid rent amount and moved the court.
In fact, he had sought permission for the reconstruction and was awaiting the temple' nod, Ramana said. Because of the rain, hehad to start construction and raised pillars from the foundation before receiving the court's notice, said Ramana.
The trial court allowed the temple's petition, following which Ramana moved the court of fifth addition judge, S Senthil Kumaresan.As the temple did not provide permission to Ramana, any construction on the land would be illegal, the judge said.As Ramana had no prima facie case, the trial court was right in allowing the temple's petition. The trial court also found that if a new concrete structure put up it would be difficult for the authorities to evict Ramana. The judge then refused permission for new concrete construction and repair work till disposal of the suit. Chennai:
No comments:
Post a Comment