JUDGMENT :

(R. Subramanian, J.)

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court dated 25.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.7988 of 2013.)

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Writ Court allowing the Writ Petition in WP No.7988 of 2012, wherein the first respondent sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the decision of the Executive Officer of the appellant dated 08.06.2012 rejecting the request of the first respondent to renew the lease for a further period of 25 years with effect from 12.04.2011 and requiring the first respondent to surrender vacant possession of the land possessed by it under the indenture of Lease Deed dated 12.04.1961 entered into between the appellant Temple and the first respondent Trust the appellant Temple is before us.

2. The factual background is as follows:

2.1. The appellant is a Temple being administrated by trustees appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the powers vested in it by the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. At times when there are vacancies in the office of the trustees, the Temple is administered by a fit person cum Executive Officer, who is an employee of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. An extent of about 104 grounds of land situate in Greenways Road, Adayar, Madras, was endowed to a Temple as an Inam and was in possession of the Temple.

2.2 The first respondent which is a Trust sought for lease of the said land to establish an Orphanage and a School for the benefit of the children belonging to the depressed class. Exercising the powers under Section 41 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) Government of Tamilnadu passed a Government Order on 22.12.1960 in G.O.Ms.No.5273 sanctioning the lease of the said 104 grounds of land on a lease rental of Rs.1,250/- per annum, subject to certain conditions. Consequent upon the said sanction, a Lease document was entered between the then Trustees of the Temple and the Trustees of the first respondent Trust. It is not in dispute that the first respondent Trust is running a School and an Orphanage as required by the conditions set out by the Government.

2.3. While things stood thus, a major portion of the land measuring about 74 grounds was encroached upon and the Fit Person of the Temple passed a resolution on 14.09.1992, to resume the encroached portion from the Trust. A communication was addressed by the Executive Officer of the appellant Temple to the President of the first respondent Trust requiring surrender of 74 grounds and 2040 sq.ft. which has been encroached. There is no evidence of any further action having been taken in that regard either by the appellant Temple or by the first respondent Trust.

2.4. After about 12 years in 2004 a legal notice was issued to the Trust informing it that it had not taken proper steps to remove the encroachments and reminding the Trust that it shall surrender possession of the entire area upon expiry of the lease period. A reply was sent by the Trust, through its counsel, stating that the extent of 28 grounds and 360 sq.ft. which is in possession of the Trust has been completely secured and informing the Temple that it is the duty of the Temple to have removed the encroachment. It was also pointed out that on 30.12.1992, the Temple had made it clear that since the removal of encroachments would take a long time there cannot be any abatement of the rent payable by the Trust under the Lease Deed. The resolution dated 14.09.1992 was also invoked to contend that the temple is deemed to be in possession of the encroached land measuring about 74 grounds and 2040 sq. ft..

2.5. After a brief lull, the first respondent Trust by its letter dated 18.06.2009 sought for renewal of the lease for a further period of 25 years as envisaged in Sub Clauses 1 and 2 of Clause 8 of the Lease Deed dated 12.04.1961. This was replied to on