List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh (2025) held that rent authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 have jurisdiction to entertain landlord eviction applications even where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has failed to furnish particulars of tenancy. 

What was the Background of Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh Case? 

• The landlord filed a suit in Small Causes Court seeking eviction of the tenant and recovery of rent arrears on the grounds that the tenant had made significant changes to the property. 
• The tenant-petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contending that after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the suit stood barred by Section 38, which bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of certain matters. 
• The Small Causes Court rejected the tenant's application. 
• The petitioner then approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Small Causes Court. 
• The central question before the Court was whether the rent authority constituted under the Act of 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by landlords in cases where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has failed to file particulars of tenancy with the rent authority. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed a significant departure between the Model Tenancy Act prepared by the Central Government and the Act of 2021 enacted by the State Legislature regarding the mandatory nature of tenancy agreements. 
• While the Model Tenancy Act expressly bars parties from claiming relief if they fail to intimate about execution or non-execution of tenancy agreement, the State Legislature chose to omit such consequences when enacting the Act of 2021. 
• The Court analyzed Section 4 of the Act of 2021 and held that it only envisages different situations in which tenancy agreements are arrived at, but nowhere restricts the rights of parties who admit the status of landlord and tenant. 
• Had the Legislature intended to restrict parties to approach rent authority only in cases of executed agreements or proper intimation, it would have adopted the restrictive provisions of the Model Tenancy Act. 
• The Act of 2021 provides for no penal consequences for failure to intimate particulars of tenancy to the Rent Authority, therefore the requirement of intimation under Section 4 must be held directory and not mandatory. 
• Consequent failure on part of the landlord to intimate about the particulars of tenancy would not divest him of his rights to seek eviction under the Act of 2021. 
• The Court emphasized that the intention of the Legislature must be seen considering all provisions and their objectives, and cannot be limited to understanding of a single provision in isolation. 

What is Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint? 

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances enumerated thereunder. 
  • Clause (a) mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Clause (b) provides for rejection where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court. 
  • Clause (c) deals with cases where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply requisite stamp-paper within the time fixed. 
  • Clause (d) mandates rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Clause (e) provides for rejection where the plaint is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Clause (f) stipulates rejection where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII. 
• The proviso stipulates that time for correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional cause and refusal would cause grave injustice. 
• The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 
• Under clause (d), the Court must determine from the averments in the plaint itself whether the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation. 
• The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to the face of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto or referred to therein. 
• The defence set up by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 
• The power should be exercised only in clear and manifest cases where the plaint is ex facie barred. 
• Where determination of limitation requires examination of evidence or consideration of mixed questions of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (d). 
• The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the plaint while considering an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Where several reliefs are claimed and even one relief is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety as barred by law. 
• The provision should not be used to shut out genuine claims merely on technical grounds without full adjudication on merits. 

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan in the case of Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors. (2025) held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and that the first honour in the temple was always to the deity, while dismissing the appeal of an ashramam seeking first special honour for its head at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram. 

What was the Background of Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The original writ petition was filed by Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha seeking to prevent the HR & CE authorities from interfering with the religious usage and customs of the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple. 
• In the writ petition, the single judge held that honour could be extended only to 5 mutts as per practice, namely: Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam - Sankara Mutt, Kanchipuram; Sri Ahobila Mutt; Sri Vanamalai Mutt, Nangunery; Sri Parakala Jeeyar Mutt, Mysore; and Sri Vyasarayar Mutt, Sosale (Udupi). 
• The single judge ruled that if honour was extended to anyone else, it would be open to challenge. 
• The present appeal was filed by Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam as a third party challenging the order. 
• The appellant argued that the practice of honouring the appellant mutt head had been dispensed with unfairly. 
• The appellant contended that they had not been made a party to the writ petition and could not defend their case. 
• The appellant claimed that its head had been conferred honour at the temple on five occasions after 1991. 
• The HR & CE Department submitted that as per the customs and usage, honours were being conferred on only 5 mutts traditionally. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that special honours in temples cannot be demanded as an absolute right, stating that such honours, though followed as practice, must be evaluated by competent authorities. 
• The bench clarified that "the 1st honour is always to the deities in the Temple and honouring Heads of Mutts, though being followed as a practice, is an issue to be decided by the competent authority under the Act." 
• The Court acknowledged that the HR&CE Department did not dispute that honour had been conferred on the head of appellant mutt on five occasions after 1991. 
• The Court noted that whether such honour could be claimed as a right or not was to be determined by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, specifically under Section 63(e) of the said Act. 
• The Court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 63(e) of the Act for determination of their claim. 
• Finding no infirmity with the single judge's order, the Court was not inclined to entertain the appeal and dismissed the same. 

What is the Legal Framework for Temple Administration in India? 

About: 

• The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959 governs the administration and management of Hindu temples and religious institutions in Tamil Nadu. 
• The Act provides for the proper administration, maintenance and management of Hindu religious and charitable institutions and endowments. 
• Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act specifically deals with the powers of the competent authority to decide disputes relating to customs and usage in temples. 
• The HR&CE Department is the statutory body responsible for overseeing temple administration, including matters related to religious customs and practices. 

Temple Honours and Customs: 

• Temple honours are privileges extended to religious leaders, mutt heads, or other distinguished persons as part of temple traditions and customs. 
• Such honours have historically been conferred based on established practices, religious significance, and the relationship between mutts and temples. 
• The practice of honouring mutt heads reflects the interconnection between various Hindu religious institutions and their respective traditions. 
• Customs and usage in temples are typically determined by historical practice, religious texts, and established conventions followed over time. 

Distinction Between Practice and Right: 

• While certain practices may be followed traditionally in temples, they do not automatically translate into enforceable legal rights. 
• The determination of whether a practice constitutes a right requires examination by competent authorities under the relevant statutory framework. 
• The first and paramount honour in any temple is always to the deity, not to any individual or institution. 
• Religious practices and honours must be evaluated within the framework of temple administration laws and constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.