JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.229 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4245 of 2016.

2. Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.4245 of 2016 against the respondents seeking the relief of declaration that defendants 2 to 5 are liable to be evicted by the 1st defendant from the schedule mentioned property and for Mandatory Injunction directing the 1st defendant to initiate eviction proceedings against the defendants 2 to 5 and let the portion to any other person to see that the temple receives rental income and for costs.

3. The case of the appellant, in brief, is as follows :

Appellant's father late Mr.Balasundaram Chettiar constructed the Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar temple and maintained its properties. There are totally 6 shops located in the premises. Rents collected from all these shops were utilised for maintaining the temple. After the demise of Mr.Balasundaram Chettiar, appellant has become the trustee of Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar and Sri Lakshmi Amman temple. 1st respondent is the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Angala Parameswari temple and Kasi Viswanathan temple at Choolai, Chennai and administered Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar temple and Sri Lakshmi Amman temple. The properties of these temples are misused by 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3rd respondent's husband is no more. 1st respondent inducted the 3rd respondent as a tenant and it is alleged that 2nd respondent sublet the portion to Mr.Loganathan. Prior to the death of the Mr.Loganathan, 1st respondent issued legal notice dated 22.04.2013 to the 2nd respondent and the deceased Loganathan directing them to vacate the premises. 1st respondent is not collecting rents either from 2nd respondent or 3rd respondent. Since 1st respondent has not discharged his duties as an Executive Officer and acted adverse to the interest of the temple, appellant questioned his conduct. Therefore, this suit is filed for the reliefs aforesaid.

4. It is seen from the case of the 1st respondent that Arulmigu Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar temple and Sri Lakshmi Amman temple are nonlisted temple. Under Section 46 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred as "TN HR & CE Act"), immediate administration is vested with fit person appointed under Section 49 (1) of the TN HR & CE Act. Executive Officer was appointed under Section 45(1) of the TN HR &CE Act as a fit person. Temple is situated in 471.71 Sq. ft. of land. Temple owns 823 sq. ft. in Survey No.2227. There is also an extent of 248 sq. ft. available in Survey No.2228. Remaining area was rented to 6 persons by the temple authorities and 146.3 sq. ft. of land was leased out to 2nd respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.820/-. It was revised to Rs.1,100/- per month from 01.11.2001. After periodical enhancement, the present rent is Rs.1,924/- per month. Loganathan, the husband of 3rd respondent approached the temple to regularize him as a tenant in the place of 2nd respondent. The recommendations for this regularisation is still pending. At this stage, this suit is filed. As per Section 78 of TN HR &CE Act, the Assistant Commissioner alone is the authority to initiate proceedings under the TN HR & CE Act. HR &CE authorities are not impleaded as proper and necessary parties in the suit. Therefore, this suit is bad for non-joinder of the proper and necessary parties . That apart, this suit is barred under Section 108 of TNHR &CE Act.

5. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that originally 2nd respondent was inducted as a tenant in the suit property and he handed over possession to the husband of 3rd respondent Loganathan. 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.399 of 2000 against Loganathan and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. 3rd respondent approached 1st respondent for recognizing his tenancy. 2nd respondent informed