T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Heard Mr. V. Jeya Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. V. Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 853 of 2017, dated 19.01.2017.

3. The appellant filed the said Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the third respondent dated 27.12.2016 and to direct the third respondent to extend the lease period for another three years by fixing 15% higher rent in respect of the shop, which was leased out to the appellant.

4. The undisputed facts are that the appellant became a tenant under the respondent temple, pursuant to a public auction conducted in December, 2012. The appellant became the successful bidder in respect of the said shop and the auction notification stated that the shop measures 473 square feet. The rent was fixed at Rs.11,000/-, taking into consideration the extent of the shop and the rental advance was fixed at Rs.1,32,000/- being rent for a period of twelve months. The auction notification further directed the appellant to pay a deposit, which was mentioned as Rs.7,20,000/-. However, the appellant has been directed to pay a deposit, which was subsequently termed as a donation to the tune of Rs.14,13,000/-.

5. The issue in the instance case is whether the appellant is entitled to continue in occupation of the premises.

6. By the impugned proceedings, the third respondent had directed that the period of lease had come to an end on 04.01.2017 and thereafter, the appellant has to vacate and hand over possession.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the appellant has handed over possession of the shop.

8. This submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the temple has locked the appellant's shop and all the movables and valuable items are within the shop.

9. Be that as it may, certain other facts are required to be gone into to consider as to what relief the appellant is entitled to.

10. Though the lease deed was entered into between the respondent temple and the appellant on 15.02.2013 mentioning the extent of property as 473 square feet, in reality, that extent was only 340 square feet. The appellant has been raising this objection ever since he became a tenant under the respondent temple. However, nothing appreciable had been done and ultimately, an order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, over which, the appellant preferred a revision before the Commissioner in R.P.No.224/2016 D2.

11. We should state that this is one of the very rarest of rare cases, where a tenant of the temple has not been a defaulter, but, has paid rent more than what is required to pay. We do not make this observation without any material, in fact, this is borne out by the order passed by the Commissioner dated 30.09.2016. The Commissioner, while deciding the revision petition in favour of the appellant, has clearly stated that an extent of 133 square feet of leasehold area has been encroached and thus, the appellant was in enjoyment of only 340 square feet and the temple did not take any steps, in spite of the appellant having brought to the knowledge of the temple about the encroachment. Thus, the Commissioner was of the clear view that the appellant has to be compensated. Having held so, the Commissioner moulded the relief to be granted to the appellant and permitted him to continue till the excess amount is adjusted. The impugned proceedings passed by the third respondent is pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner. We find that the third respondent has interpreted the order passed by the Commissioner, which, in our considered view, is not appropriately.

12. After hearing the