IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy, and prior judgments establishing the landlord's rights are binding in subsequent claims regarding property ownership.

JUDGMENT :

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

Prayer:- Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 02.02.2021 passed in W.P. No. 38670 of 2005 by the learned Single Judge.

This intra-Court appeal invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, arises out of the order dated 02.02.2021 in W.P. No. 38670 of 2005 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their description in the said Writ Petition for the sake of clarity and convenience.

3. We have heard Mr. P.V.S.Giridhar, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.R.Krishnaraj, Learned Counsel for the Appellants; Mrs.R.Anitha, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First to Fourth Respondents; and Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Fifth Respondent.

4. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition have been extensively captured in the order dated 02.02.2021 in W.P. No. 38670 of 2005 and hence, the same are not repeated in this order except with regard to the material facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this Appeal.

5. The Fifth Respondent is a Temple governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNHRCE Act' for short) and claimed ownership of the land that had been classified as 'Natham Poramboke' in the revenue records maintained by the Government, measuring an extent of 0.41 cents at S.F. No. 261/B1, Palladam, Coimbatore District relying on the certificate of possession dated 11.04.1973 issued by the Tahsildar, Palladam. Several persons including the First to Fifth Petitioners were carrying on business in the premises bearing Door Nos. 170-D, 170-B, 170-C, 170-A and 162, 261/B1 and 262/3 forming part of the said land with whom the Fifth Respondent had entered lease. The claim of the Fifth Respondent for re-classification of the land from 'Natham Poramboke' to 'Kovil Poramboke' had been rejected by the Additional Collector, Coimbatore in his Proceedings dated 26.04.1992 and the revenue authorities were directed to consider the claim of all persons (including the First to Fifth Petitioners) for assignment by following the existing rules. The said order was challenged by the Fifth Respondent before the Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai, who had by Proceedings in D.Dis.F3/50495/92 dated 13.11.1995, confirmed that order. The Fifth Respondent as well as the First to Fifth Petitioners were unsuccessful in assailing the said orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in the Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.17164 of 1995 and 10320 of 1996 which were disposed by common order dated 21.01.2002 passed by this Court. However, as the Fifth Respondent had not established its title to that property, this Court had observed in the said order that the Fifth Respondent cannot recover any rent from the First to Fifth Petitioners in respect of the shops under their occupation with the clarification that while considering the status of those parties, the Revenue Authorities would have to give due weightage to the long uninterrupted possession of the Temple, which has been approved by the Tahsildar, Palladam over the claim of the First to Fifth Petitioners. Subsequently, the District Collector, Coimbatore in his Proceedings dated 24.05.2004 in Na.Ka. 78055/ 99/ A3 upheld the claim of the Fifth Respondent for grant of patta for the entire extent of land of 0.41 Acres of land in S.Nos. 261B/2 and 262/3 (page 48 translation)in Palladam Village, Coimbatore District, and it was affirmed by the Commissioner of Land Administration in his Proceedings dated 20.10.2005 in Roc.No. F3/24127/2004 (P.No.54). The First to Fifth Petitioners challenged the said orders in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 38670 of 2005 before this Court, and it was dismissed on 02.02.2021 against which the First to Fifth Petitioners have preferred instant appeal. On the demise of the Fourth Petitioner on 20.03.2022 during the pendency of this appeal, the Six