A non-tenant lacks legal rights over temple property, rendering eviction orders sanctioned under statutory provisions valid and enforceable.

[Judgment of the Court was made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]

The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 07.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.11145 of 2022.

2. The property comprised in Town Survey No.311, situated at Hajiyar Street, 1^st Ward, Kumbakonam Town and Taluk, Thanjavur District, admeasuring an extent of 602 sq.ft of land belongs to the temple known as “Arulmighu Illuppaiyadi Pillayar”. One Mr.Varadarajulu Naidu appears to be in possession of the temple property as a tenant under the Temple. He made an attempt to claim title over the temple property and the matter went upto the High Court in S.A.No.385 of 1989, and the High Court held that the property belongs to the said Temple. Subsequently, the appellant allegedly purchased the property from the said Varadarajulu Naidu and is presently in possession of the property. Thus, the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department {hereinafter “HR&CE Department” for the sake of brevity} initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 {hereinafter “TNHR&CE Act” for the sake of brevity}. An order of eviction came to be passed on 29.03.2019. Against the order of eviction passed under Section 78 of TNHR&CE Act, the appellant preferred a revision petition under Section 21 of the TNHR&CE Act before the Commissioner, HR&CE Department. The Commissioner, after adjudication, rejected the revision petition on 09.03.2022. Challenging the orders passed by both the original authority as well as the Revisional Authority, the appellant filed the writ petition.

3. The learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition and directed the official respondents to complete the proceedings against the petitioner for eviction and secure vacant possession within a period of four weeks.

4. Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the subsequent observations made by the learned single Judge that a fresh application may be submitted by the appellant for grant of lease. Pursuant to the interim order granted in the writ appeal, the appellant paid the arrears of rent and therefore, the authorities may consider the application submitted by the appellant for grant of lease. It is further contended that the appellant continues to pay the rent.

5. Admittedly, the appellant is not a lessee under the Temple. The original tenant had illegally executed a sale deed and therefore, the said sale deed would not confer any right on the appellant. The civil dispute raised between the original tenant against the temple had already ended in favour of the temple in S.A.No.385 of 1989. Thus, it is not in dispute that the temple is the absolute owner of the subject property.

6. The appellant, admittedly is neither a tenant nor in occupation with the permission of the competent authority under the HR&CE Department. The eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 78 of TNHR&CE Act and an order of eviction was passed. The revision filed by the appellant before the Commissioner is rejected on merits.

7. In view of the above factum, mere observation made by the writ Court is of no avail to the appellant since granting of lease of temple property must be done scrupulously in accordance with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.

8. The Temple properties are required to be protected by the competent authorities under the provisions of the TNHR&CE Act and leasing out the properties must be done by following the procedure as contemplated under the Statute and Rules in force. Once in three years a fair rent is to be fixed in view of Section 34-A of the TNHR&CE Act.

9. In the present case, the fair rent has