Madras High Court has refused to grant relief to Amrutanjan Limited, a Chennai-based popular pain relief balm maker, in a case over rental arrears of Rs 9.74 crore it owed to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department for occupying 14 grounds and 910 sq ft of prime land belonging to the Kapaleeswarar temple in Mylapore, in the heart of the city.
The company moved the High Court with a writ appeal challenging a single judge’s order to evict it from the temple land. It had been occupying the land for a paltry rent of Rs 1,400 per month till October 2001, and also faced recovery of rental arrears at the rate of Rs 3.3 lakh per month from November.
The appeal came up before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Aravind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on March 16. The appeal had been filed against the dismissal of Amrutanjan’s 2005 writ petition by Justice M Dhandapani on September 25, 2025.
He observed that the temple management had leased out 14 grounds and 910 square feet of its land at Luz Church Road to P R Sudera Iyer on August 28, 1901.
As per the lease agreement, it was for a period of 99 years on payment of a monthly rent of Rs 1,400. However, he subleased it to Amrutanjan company, which has been in occupation of the said land for decades.
After the expiry of the lease period on August 27, 2002, the temple demanded enhanced rent, but Amrutanjan did not agree to pay. This forced HR&CE to move court on September 17, 2001, directing the company to vacate the property on or before November 1, 2001. When it failed to vacate the temple land, a fresh notice was issued to it on June 16, 2024, yet the company continued to occupy the land in question.
Following a new provision in the HR&CE Act, a committee was constituted to fix lease rent for temple properties based on market value, which fixed Rs 3.30 lakh for 14 grounds of land and demanded it with retrospective effect from 2001. Amrutanjan filed a statutory appeal before HR&CE, which was rejected without depositing the arrears of the lease amount in the temple’s bank account.
On March 16, the High Court in its order said, “The only issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was right in upholding the power of the respondent authorities in insisting on payment of pre-deposit of the rent for entertaining the appeal.”
The division bench said, “At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that the appellant is not the original lessee. The original lessee had assigned the lease rights to the appellant. The appellant, in strict sense, is not a tenant. In the case on hand, the appellant is not even a tenant, and it is recorded in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had been evicted from the premises and the second respondent has taken over possession of the lands. That apart, as noted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been in occupation of 14 grounds and 910 sq ft by paying a paltry rent of Rs 1,400 for more than a century. It is not the case of the appellant that before fixing fair rent no opportunity was afforded. The appellant, having participated in the proceedings, is now challenging the provision which empowers the authorities to insist on pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.”
The court ruled, “As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, if the plea of the appellant that the condition mandating pre-deposit is onerous is accepted, then the religious institutions, which heavily depend on such rental incomes, would not be able to maintain the properties and fulfil the religious duties.”
While dismissing the appeal, the court was told that the company had already been evicted. The judges ordered, “However, if the eviction has not been done till date, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to evict the petitioner from the property and also take steps to recover rent fixed by the Fair Rent Fixation Committee, including the arrears, within a period of two weeks.”
Reacting to the High Court order, temple activist T R Ramesh, in a post on X, said, “Appeal filed by Amrutanjan Ltd — an encroacher of prime property of 14 grounds belonging to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple and located in Mylapore — an encroacher for more than 25 years — was dismissed by the hon’ble 1st Bench of Madras High Court today. The misfits and frauds in @tnhrcedept should take possession of the land at once. They should do their duties at least now. They should file criminal cases against the Company Directors under Section 79-B of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959 at least now. Hey Commissioner of @tnhrcedept, do proper calculation of the arrear rents along with interest and take steps to recover the arrears. If need be, you must file an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the defaulter.”
Appeal filed by Amrutanjan Ltd – an encroacher of prime property of 14 grounds belonging to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple and located in Mylapore –
an encroacher for more than 25 years –WAS DISMISSED BY HON'BLE 1st Bench of Madras High Court today –
The misfits and frauds… https://t.co/II6FT4YGHW
— trramesh (@trramesh) March 16, 2026
In the past, 10,000 sq ft of temple land was recovered in 2017 after it was sublet by tenants who had held the land for 100 years; 42 grounds of land leased for the Mylapore Club in 1903 had some portions submerged in disputes; and in 1901, another 25 grounds were taken on a 99-year lease and subsequently sublet. It has been the case in other temple properties under the Dravidian parties’ rule in Tamil Nadu. Some were even encroached upon by minorities.
