ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.108 of 2018.

2. The 1st respondent instituted the Suit in O.S.No.108 of 2018 to evict the revision petitioner from the Suit Schedule Property. During the pendency of the Suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.108 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues and dismissed the Interlocutory Application mainly on the ground that the plaint discloses cause of action and the relationship of tenant-landlord is also stated in the plaint. Therefore, the issues are to be adjudicated by way of trial. Challenging the said order, which is passed in the Interlocutory Application, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Suit itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the property belongs to the Temple and that is under the control of the HR and CE Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is paying the rent to the Temple and receiving receipts. While so, the Suit instituted by the respondent, who is not the owner of the property is liable to be rejected. Thus, the trial Court has not considered the preliminary issues raised in this regard and rejected the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner states that the property belong to the Temple, the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramar Bajanai Temple, Thiruvallur has been suo-moto impleaded as 2nd respondent in the present civil revision petition.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Temple, on getting instructions from the department made a submission that already the issues regarding the title had been decided in AS.No.449 of 1998 and the High Court of Madras passed an order on 22.04.2008 as follows

“7. It is not in dispute that the land in which 'Ramar Bajanai Koodam' is situated was owned by Sadasivam Chetty, grandfather of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a private property of the plaintiff's family for their exclusive worship and there is no public worship and it does not come under the purview of the Act 22 of 1959. It is needless to say that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the case pleaded by him. In the present suit, the plaintiff has filed only three documents on his side. Exs.A1 is the Advocate's notice dated 19.02.1996 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and Exs.A2 and A3 are the order and decreetal order of the Appellate Authority viz., the defendant, dated 26.02.1990 in A.P.No.56 of 1987 respectively. In Ex.A2 order, the Appellate Authority considered the document filed by the plaintiff herein, which is of the year 1926 and held that the Bajanai Koodam was in existence as early as on 1926 and was managed by five trustees, of whom, the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely, Sadasivam Chetty was one of the trustees and he had dedicated some properties purchased by him in favour of 'Ramar Bajanai Koodam' by specifically mentioning in the document that the properties were dedicated for charitable purposes to 'Ramar Bajanai Koodam' and he and his descendants have no right whatsoever on the said properties gifted by him and relying on the above recitals, the Appellate Authority has concluded that 'Ramar Bajanai Koodam' is a 'religious institution' as defined under the Act.”

Therefore, the subject property belongs to the temple and thus, the Suit itself is not maintainable under Section 108 of the HR and CE Act.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader further brought to the notice of this Court regarding the order passed in W.P.No.41014 of 2016 dated 03.08.2022, wherein, this Court reiterated that the subject property belongs to temple and a fit person was allowed to be appointed. The relevant paragraphs passed in the Writ P