Lease without sanction of the Board is violative of the provisions of the Act.

PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J

The appellant was granted a 60 year lease on 07-05-1949 by the trustee of the respondent-temple. A suit was filed in 1979 for recovery of possession by the respondent. The appellant resisted the suit and inter alia claimed the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921('the Act' in short). The suit was dismissed on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to recover possession of the suit property before the stipulated lease period. The learned Single Judge, however, held that the respondent-temple was governed by the provision of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (1959 Act in short) or the Madras Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (1927 Act in short) and the lease granted without the sanction of the Board was invalid and that "at the most, while he can say that he is not a trespasser..", he has no legal status as a tenant. Alongwith this appeal, the learned Single Judge also disposed of the revision filed by the appellant herein against the dismissal of the petition under Section 9 of the Act. Against this, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition and we are informed that he was directed to agitate his rights as a city tenant in this appeal.

2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in earlier proceedings, the respondent pleaded a different case. Two suits were filed by the parties herein, both for injunction against each other. The judgment in appeal filed against those suits was marked in this suit as Ex-B17. The appeal had ended in favour of the appellant holding that he had proved possession on the date of suit. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that there is no evidence to show that the suit property is subject to the provisions of either the 1959 Act or the 1927 Act. So, the restrictions on alienation would not apply to the lease between the parties and even assuming that the 60 year lease is invalid, there should be an implied lease, in view of the documents marked by the appellants and therefore, the tenant was entitled to the protection under the Act.

3. The lease deed was entered into before the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 came into force. The law then applicable was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. This Act was intended, inter alia, to provide for the better administration and governance of certain Hindu Religious Endowments.

4. Under Section 76 of the 1927 Act, no exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a time exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to any [math, temple or specific endowment] shall be valid or operative unless it is necessary or beneficial to the [math, temple or specific endowment] and is sanctioned [by the Board].

5. In this case there has been no sanction from the Board. The case of the appellant is that the temple is not governed by the provisions of the Act and therefore, this restraint will not apply. While deciding the right of the respondent to file the suit for recovery of possession, the Trial Court held in favour of the respondent because his right as a hereditary trustee was upheld in view of Ex-A4. Ex-A4 is the copy of the decree in O.S.No.7132 of 1978 filed by the respondent under the provisions of the 1959 Act. The plaintiff/ respondent had filed a petition to declare himself as the hereditary trustee of the Temple. The authorities under the 1959 Act, held against him in A.P.No.47 of 1976. So he filed a suit under Section 70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The suit was decreed in his favour declaring his right to be a hereditary trustee. It is clear therefore, that the respondent's right to act as hereditary trustee has been asserted only by invoking the provisions of the 1959 Act.

6. In the 1959 Act, 'hereditary trustee' has been defined as the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such schemes