JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with order dated 09.03.2017 in proceedings No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2004/2017/A3, on the file of the said respondent and quash the same so far as it relates to the late father of the petitioners 1 to 4 Mr.P.Lakshmi Narayana Bhat, No.6, Gangadeeswarar Koil Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084 in the table enclosed to the impugned order.)

The proceedings dated 09.03.2017 issued by the second respondent-Joint Commissioner in fixing the fair rent, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The main grievances of the petitioners are that without giving any notice to the petitioners and without providing any opportunity, the fair rent is fixed and the demand is made. The fourth respondent-Executive Officer has sent a demand notice dated 16.08.2021, demanding the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,34,68,291/- nomenclaturing the same as damages for use and occupation. Apart from the demand notice of fixing the fair rent, the respondents have initiated proceedings under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short] for eviction of the petitioners from the temple premises.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the demand notice fixing the fair rent unilaterally, is in violation of the provisions of Section 34-A of the Act. The petitioners are entitled for an opportunity before fixing any such fair rent under Section 34-A of the Act. In view of the fact that no such opportunity had been given to the petitioners, the order impugned dated 09.03.2017 is liable to be set aside.

4. The petitioners state that a Lease Deed was executed on 23.11.1983 by the temple based on the resolution of the then Board of Trustees, the lease was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners late Mr.Lakshmi Narayana Bhatt. The father of the petitioners started running a hotel in the temple property in the name and style of 'Raj Bhavan'.

5. The petitioners state that their father demolished the dilapidated lease superstructure and constructed a building for the purpose of running his hotel business. The lease was extended by the then Board of Trustees on 21.07.1999 for a period of three years. However, after the demise of the father of the petitioners, the Lease Deed was not extended nor the lease was granted in the name of the petitioners. Even the name transfer is not effected.

6. The fourth respondent filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4266 of 2001 to evict the father of the petitioners. The said suit was filed for eviction of tenant and for claiming damages.

7. The petitioners state that such a suit against the valid Lessee is not maintainable and during the pendency of the suit, the father of the petitioners died. Subsequently, the mother and the petitioners were brought on record as the Legal Representatives of the deceased Mr.Lakshmi Narayana Bhatt. The mother of the petitioners also died during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the temple and against the petitioners. Thus, they preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.132 of 2017 and the said appeal suit is pending.

8. The Executive Officer issued a notice on 26.04.2016, by stating that the Lessee died and the possession of the temple property is to be restored. It was stated that the construction has been done without permission and the father of the petitioners and the petitioners were considered as encroachers. Again a notice was issued on 13.05.2016.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners are continuing the possession of the said property belongs to the temple and they are regularly paying the rent as fixed. There is no default in payment of rent. It is contended even the fair rent fixed in the year 2001 was being paid and some of the receipts are also