Amrutanjan files appeal against order to pay crores of rupees towards rental arrears for Mylapore Kapaleeswarar Temple property

The management of Amrutanjan Limited, a 132-year-old Chennai based company popular for its pain relief balm across the country, is now facing a pain in the neck because of the requirement to pay crores of rupees towards rental arrears for 14 grounds of the Mylapore Kapaleeswarar Temple land on Luz Church Road in Chennai.

The company has filed a writ appeal before the Madras High Court challenging a single judge’s order to evict it from the temple property, which it had been occupying for a paltry rent of ₹1,400 per month till October 2001, and also to recover the rental arrears at the rate of ₹3.3 lakh per month from November 1, 2001.

The appeal has been listed for hearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday (March 16, 2026). It had been filed against the dismissal of Amrutanjan’s 2005 writ petition by Justice M. Dhandapani on September 25, 2025.

In his verdict, the judge had pointed out the temple management had leased out 14 grounds and 910 square feet of its land at Luz Church Road to P.R. Sundera Iyer on August 28, 1901. As per the agreement, the lease would be for a period of 99 years and on payment of a monthly rent of ₹1,400.

However, Iyer, in turn, had assigned the lease rights to Amrutanjan which was in occupation of the land for decades together. After the expiry of the original lease period on August 27, 2000, the temple demanded enhanced rent but Amrutanjan did not come forward to pay the enhanced rent.

Hence, the temple issued a notice on September 17, 2001 asking Amrutanjan to vacate the property on or before November 1, 2001. When the company did not vacate the land, a fresh notice was issued to it on June 16, 2024. Yet, the company continued to be in possession of the land.

In the meantime, Section 34A was introduced to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act of 1959 through an amendment carried out in 2003. The new legal provision provided for constitution of a committee to fix lease rent for temple properties based on market value.

The committee comprised of the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE department, the executive officer of the temple, the chairperson of the temple’s board of trustees and the district registrar. In 2005, the committee fixed ₹3.30 lakh as monthly rent for 14 grounds of land and demanded it with retrospective effect from 2001.

Immediately, Amrutanjan filed a statutory appeal before the HR&CE Commissioner under Section 34A(3) of the Act. The Commissioner refused to entertain the appeal unless the company deposits the lease amount fixed by the committee, in the temple’s bank account, as required under a proviso to Section 34A(5).

Hence, Amrutanjan had filed the writ petition in November 2005 to declare Section 34A(5) as illegal, ultravires and unenforceable and continued to be in possession of the property even as the writ petition was pending for about 20 years. Justice Dhandapani had taken it up for final hearing and dismissed it in 2025.

At the time of dismissal, the judge was informed the company had already been evicted. “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 the respondents are also directed to take steps to recover the rent fixed by the Fair Rent Committee, including the arrears, within a period of four weeks,” he ordered.