S. Manikumar, J.

1. Appellants before us have filed separate W.P. (MD) Nos. 11088 to 11104 of 2015 to consider their written representations, dated 05.06.2015, seeking to renew the lease granted to them by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, for a further period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2018 with regard to the shops situated at Beach area in Kanyakumari, belonging to the 3rd respondent temple and by imposing condition of payment of 15% increase of rent over and above rent paid by the petitioners for the month of June 2015 and by imposing any other condition.

2. Appellants are licensees of the shops in the premises of Sri Bagavathiyamman temple, Kanyakumari District from the year 2012, on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Admittedly, they are put in possession of the shops each measuring 40 square feet. According to them, they have been regular in payment of rent. The appellants have further contended that the license period expired in 2015. They made representations for renewal of licence for the said shops from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2018, by enhancing the rent by 15%. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, appellants have filed miscellaneous petitions for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from evicting them from the shops. On the material on records, by the common order in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015 etc. in W.P. (MD) No. 11088 of 2015 etc., dated 02.07.2015, the Writ Court, granted interim injunction in all the writ petitions, on condition that the appellants would pay Rs.5/- per square feet per day for the occupation of the shops belonging to the temple. The Writ Court has further recorded the submissions of the petitioners that they would not put up any permanent construction.

3. Assailing the correctness of the common order, by which, interim injunction has been granted on condition to pay Rs.5/- per square feet, instant appeals have been filed on the grounds inter-alia that if payment of rent of Rs.5/- per square feet per day, for 40 square feet is worked out, then the rent payable by the appellants would be Rs.6,000/- per month, which would be five times of the rent than what is currently paid. Attention of this Court is also invited that all the licensees have paid a substantial amount towards donation to the temple.

4. Added further, Mr. S. Loganathan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are other shop owners in close proximity in the subject temple paying only 0.50 paise per square feet per day for their occupation and therefore, the condition of payment of Rs.5/- per square feet per day would put the appellants in great hardship. In the above said circumstances, he seeks for reversal of the orders impugned.

5. Considering the limited prayer sought in the writ petitions, which is for the disposal of the representation of the appellants for renewal of the license for the above said shops, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai, suggested that the writ petitions can be tagged along with the writ appeals for disposal, for which, Mr. S. Loganathan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Sathiya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, have no objection. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to put up a special list, tagging all the writ petitions for joint hearing and disposal.

6. Mr. K. Sathiyasingh, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 has not disputed the fact that in respect of some other shops, a sum of Rs. 0.50/- alone is being collected as rent per square feet per day. However, it is his contention that fixation of rent depends upon the place of location of the shop, though, it is within the same temple property.

7. Mr. S. Loganathan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in addition to a sum of Rs. 1200/-, being paid as rent for the shops for the occupation of the appellants, measuring 40 square feet, appellants would pay a further sum of Rs. 1200/- per squ