JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass order in petitioner's stay petition filed on 19.08.2021 after granting personal hearing to my counsel and atleast with period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.)

The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders in the petitioner's stay petition filed on 19.08.2021, after granting personal hearing to the counsel for the petitioner and for that purpose, the period also may be stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that land to an extent of 3227 sq.feet at No.181, M.T.H.Road, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 belongs to the 4th respondent temple and the superstructure originally belonged to the father of the petitioner Mr.D.Kandasamy, who has developed the superstructure. The petitioner further states that on 22.11.1990, by a registered Sale Deed, his father had sold the superstructure along with the Lease Hold Rights to his brother namely Mr.D.Kumarasamy. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his brother Mr.D.Kumarasamy/5th respondent has executed Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner through his Power Agent in Document No.1015 of 2011, which was registered by the Sub-Registrar.

3. The petitioner states that pursuant to the said Settlement Deed, the petitioner is a permissible tenant and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property till date by letting out to tenants. The petitioner claims that he pays the admitted rent regularly. He requested the 4th respondent for name transfer as he had done some minor repairs in the property. The temple authorities filed O.S.No.6587 of 2015 for permanent and mandatory injunction against Mr.D.Kumarasamy and the petitioner, not to put up any illegal construction in the temple property and the said suit is pending.

4. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent has been then and there arbitrarily increasing the rent and the said increased rent is also being paid by the petitioner. However, the receipts are given in the name of Mr.D.Kumarasamy. The petitioner has stated that the 4th respondent has terminated the Lease Deed on 29.07.2008 and thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.6587 of 2015 is filed for injunction not to put up any illegal construction in the temple properties. Under these circumstances, the competent authorities initiated action under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”] and passed the order of eviction and the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department passed an order of eviction under Section 78(4)-1 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 in proceedings dated 10.04.2018. The eviction order has been communicated to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appeal is pending.

5. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.27951 of 2019 and this Court passed an order on 20.07.2019, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the third respondent temple and the petitioner paid the said amount and thereafter, this Court directed the 1st respondent to number the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeals are numbered and pending before the 1st respondent.

6. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents are initiating steps to evict the petitioner as the 1st respondent has not granted any interim stay of the order of eviction. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction, to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the Stay Petition.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is an encroacher. At no point of time, he is recognized as a lesse