Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – Section 21(2)(a) and 36(2) – This case involves civil revision petitions filed by tenants against the dismissal of their applications to reopen the evidence of the landlords and recall them for cross-examination in eviction proceedings. The landlords had filed eviction petitions under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, citing willful default and the absence of a rental agreement.

The tenants argued that they were not bound by the sale deed between the previous owner and the current landlords and thus had a right to cross-examine the landlords (PW1). They also claimed that the Rent Controller prematurely concluded on the landlord-tenant relationship.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 Section 6(11) And 54 – This case involves multiple writ petitions concerning the Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple in Madurai. The core issues are the hereditary trusteeship, poojariship rights, and the sharing of temple income among the descendants of the founding family. The temple was declared a public temple in 1925 and an “excepted” temple in 1935, with trusteeship traditionally held within the family of Valliammal.

The court addressed three main issues:

1.

Constitution of India Article 25 and Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Article 341 – This case revolves around an appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking the issuance of a Scheduled Caste (SC) community certificate. The appellant claimed to belong to the Valluvan caste, recognized as an SC in the Union Territory of Pondicherry as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.

The appellant’s application for the certificate was rejected by the authorities, citing that she did not profess Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism, as required by the aforementioned order. The appellant argued that she professed Hinduism, despite having been baptized as a Christian in infancy.

Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 – Article 368 – The writ petitions challenged the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution, arguing the amendments were retrospective, against the Constituent Assembly’s intent, and restrictive to economic policy choices. The petitioners also argued that the amendment was unconstitutional, as it was passed during the Emergency after the Lok Sabha’s normal tenure.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, highlighting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, under Article 368. The Court emphasized that the date of the Constitution’s adoption does not limit this amending power.

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – Section 82 & 83; Constitution of India Article 32. – This case involves appeals against a High Court order directing the demolition of unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot in Meerut, originally allotted to Respondent No. 5 by the U.P.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i), 11(3), 26 – This case involves a challenge to the Executing Court’s order that allowed an application filed by a sub-tenant (7th respondent) under Sections 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and dismissed the execution applications filed by the landlords.

The landlords had filed an eviction petition against the chief tenant and sub-tenants under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking eviction due to the chief tenant’s default in rent payment. The chief tenant surrendered the tenancy, and symbolic possession was recorded by the High Court. Subsequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction against all respondents, including the sub-tenants.

Easements Act, 1882 – Sections 8, 9 – This case concerns a Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff, challenging the rejection of their suit for declaration and injunction by both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff claimed easementary rights (necessity and prescription) over a cart track on the defendant’s land, based on a sale deed (Ex. A1) from 1987 that granted permission to use the cart track. The defendants denied the existence of the cart track.

Information Technology Rules 2003 Rule 3; Constitution of India Article 21 – This case revolves around a writ petition filed by a father (P1) and son (P2) against a self-financing college (R2) and the Higher Education Department (R1) concerning restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. P2, a student of B.E. Computer Science, was allegedly prevented from attending in-person classes for objecting to the college’s insistence on disclosing vaccination status, which the petitioners argued was a violation of his right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

The petitioners challenged G.O.Ms.No.164, dated 27.08.2021, which outlined Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for reopening higher education institutions.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92  – This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, rejecting a plaint (O.S.SR.No.105 of 2023) seeking a permanent injunction against interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of a Trust named “Srimath Ramalinga Swamigal Madalayam, alias Perumal Swamigal Trust”. The suit also sought a mandatory injunction against the fifth defendant, a bank, preventing the disbursement of funds deposited in the Trust’s name.

The plaintiff claimed to be the President of the Trust, asserting that defendants 1 to 4 were interfering with its activities. The District Munsif rejected the plaint, directing the plaintiff to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, which deals with public charities.

Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(d) & Family Courts Act 1984 Section 7 And 19 –  This case involves a civil revision petition filed by a husband seeking directions for the expedited disposal of his divorce petition (O.P.No.4126 of 2024) filed before the Family Court in Chennai under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, citing cruelty and adultery as grounds for divorce. The husband also sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain his wife from pursuing divorce proceedings in the United States of America (USA) or Singapore.

The couple married in Chennai under the Special Marriage Act and later relocated to the USA and then Singapore. The wife initiated divorce proceedings in Washington, USA, based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” a ground not recognized under the Special Marriage Act.