The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of the property as a private temple exempted it from the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, and the tenant's delay in seeking the remedy disentitled the tenant from claiming the benefits of the Act.

1. C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 is against the order passed in E.P.No.294 of 2004 in O.S.No.918 of 1973. C.R.P. PD No.1626 of 2008 is against the order passed in I.A.No.53 of 2005 in O.P.No.71 of 1980. The revision petitioners in C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 are the respondents in C.R.P. PD No.1626 of 2008 and the second respondent in C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 has filed the revision in C.R.P. PD No.1626 of 2008.

2. The admitted facts of these two cases are as follows:-

One Kuppu Rao claiming to be the hereditary trustee and poojakar of Sri Veera Anjaneya Temple inducted one Ramalinga Gounder as a tenant in respect of the vacant land belonging to the temple. The tenant Ramalinga Gounder constructed two thatched houses in the said land and was in possession of the same by paying Municipal Tax. In the year 1963, Kuppu Rao initiated proceedings under section 63(B) of the HR&CE Act in O.A.No.64 of 1963 before the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE to declare him as hereditary trustee of Sri Veera Anjaneya Temple. That petition was dismissed and the appeal No.16 of 1968 to the Commissioner, HR&CE was also dismissed. Therefore, the said Kuppu Rao filed statutory suit in O.S.No.151 of 1969 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore to declare himself as a hereditary trustee of Sri Anjaneyar Temple. That suit was dismissed on 29.12.1973 and as against the dismissal of O.S.No.151 of 1969, Kuppu Rao filed first appeal and the same was withdrawn later. In the meanwhile, Kuppu Rao was removed from the trusteeship of the temple and one Thanikachalam was appointed as trustee of the temple. Therefore, Kuppu Rao filed O.S.No.918 of 1973 against Ramalinga Gounder for a declaration that he is entitled to the suit property and for recovery of possession and in that suit, he described himself as hereditary trustee and poojakar of Veera Anjaneya Temple. That suit was dismissed on 10.1.1975 by the District Munsif, Cuddalore and Kuppu Rao filed A.S.No.51 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore. During the pendency of the first appeal, he died and the revision petitioners in C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 were impleaded as legal heirs in the first appeal in A.S.No.51 of 1975 and the first appeal was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.918 of 1973 was decreed and the same was confirmed in S.A.No.955 of 1977 on 8.1.1980.

3. During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.918 of 1973, the sons of Kuppu Rao viz., revision petitioners 2 and 3 in C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 filed O.S.No.578 of 1974 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore for a declaration that the entire land of an extent of 31 cents situate in T.S.No.708 in Ward No.6, Block No.22, Cuddalore Municipality was their family private property and the Veera Anjaneya Temple is their private temple. That suit was filed against the Commissioner, HR & CE, Thanikachalam, who was appointed as trustee by the HR&CE Department and also against one Govindasamy, who was later appointed as trustee in the place of Thanikachalam and also one Kuppu Rao alias Venkataramana Rao. Ramalinga Gounder was not a party to that suit. That suit was dismissed on 24.2.1976 and A.S.No.141 of 1976 was filed and that was allowed on 14.4.1976. The judgment in A.S.No.144 of 1976 was also confirmed in S.A.No.141 of 1978 by this court.

4. After the disposal of the first appeal in A.S.No.51 of 1975, by which O.S.No.918 of 1973 was decreed, the plaintiffs in that suit viz., revision petitioners in C.R.P. NPD No.1580 of 2006 filed E.P.No.33 of 1977 to execute the decree in O.S.No.918 of 1973. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Amendment Act II/1980) was passed and published on 3.3.1980, in the Government Gazette. Therefore, Ramalinga Gounder filed applications in E.A.No.897 of 1980 in E.P.No.33 of 1977 under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the relief that he is entitled to the benefits of Act II of 1980 and therefore, the decree regarding possession of the land held by Ramaling