Judgment :- The defendants in the four suits are the appellants in all these four appeals. The plaintiff is common i.e., Kulalar Pillaiyar Temple bu its Managing Trustee R. Kandasamy. The defendant in each of the suits is a tenant of the plaintiff. These Second appeals arise out of the four suits filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in each of the suits for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and future rent. As regards the question of arrears of rent the suit was subsequently withdrawn as the arrears of rent had been deposited into Court to the credit of the plaintiff. Therefore the only question of eviction of the defendant is surviving. 2. The defendants seem to have filed petitions under S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and those Petitions have been dismissed. As against that no appeal has been preferred. 3. The trial Court (District Munsif, Tiruppur) decreed the suits for eviction and future rent with costs. As regards the arrears of rent it dismissed the suits as withdrawn but without costs to the defendants. 4. Four appeals were filed by the defendants-tenants. the appeals were not only against the decree for eviction and future rent but also against the disallowance of costs to the defendants while dismissing the suits as regards the claim of arrears of rent. The first appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Coimbatore) agreed with the findings of the trial Court that the defendants are liable to be evicted and also that they are liable to pay future rent and further held that the disallowance of cost to the defendants in respect of the dismissal of the suit as regards the arrears of rent is correct and that order cannot be interfered with. As against these judgments the present four second appeals have been filed by the defendants. 5. All the appeals were heard together and Mr. V. Narayanaswami, learned counsel appearing for all the appellants argued the case. He raised two common points in all the appeals. The first point is that R. Kandaswamy who has filed the suit as representing the temple as Managing Trustee is incompetent to file the suit, and the other point is that both the Courts below erred in disallowing costs to the defendants in respect of the dismissal of the suit as regards the arrears of rent. 6. The first point is that R. Kandaswamy who has filed the suit as representing the temple as Managing Trustee is incompetent to file the suit, and the other point is that both the Courts below erred in disallowing costs to the defendants in respect of the dismissal of the suit as regards the arrears of rent. 6. As regards the first point, it is argued that the said R. Kandaswamy was a trustee of the temple and in that capacity he issued notices of termination of tenancy but after Act 24 of 1976 which came into force on 1-6-1976 he was incompetent to act as a trustee. It is further argued that no doubt the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board has passed an order Ex. Al on 5-5-1977 in and by which he has appointed five trustees to the temple the first of them being the said R. Kandaswamy and that on 27-6-1977 the Board of trustees have passed a resolution electing him (R. Kandasamy) as Managing Trustee, but in a revision petition filed by the defendants before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, against an order passed by R. Kandasamy as Chairman of Board of Trustees on 31-12-1976 directing the defendants to vacate the premises the Commissioner has passed an order Ex. B1 dt. 16-7-1977 in which he, observing that the said Kandasamy was elected as Managing Trustee in the meeting of trustees held on 25-3-1976 and ever since he has been continuing as such and that the trustees appointed by the Department, on and from the date of coming into force of Act 24 of 1976, have ceased to be trustees, and from that date the Department has not, appointed any fit person and Kandasamy seems to continue in office as a de facto trustee and such continuance is not valid, directed the Assistant Commissioner to immediately take steps to appoint a fit person and through him take steps for eviction of the Petitioners before him. Mr. Narayanasamy proceeds in his argument that R. Kandasamy has no right to institute the suits against the defendants. 7. As against this Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that under Ex. Al dt. Mr. Narayanasamy proceeds in his argument that R. Kandasamy has no right to institute the suits against the defendants. 7. As against this Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that under Ex. Al dt. 5-5-1977 itself, under S. 49 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, i.e., after Act 24 of 1976 came into effect on 1.6.1976 the Assistant Commissioner has appointed five persons including R. Kandasamy as trustees and therefore that order is valid under the Act and unfortunately this order has not been brought to the notice of the Commissioner when he passed his order Ex. B1 on 16-7-1977. Now, the Assistant Commissioner has power under S.49 to appoint trustees. Therefore Ex. A1 order passed by the Assistant Commissioner after the Act came into force appointing R.Kandasamy as one of the trustees is quite valid. There is nothing to show that this order was brought to the notice of the Commissioner when he passed Ex. B1 order. However it is argued that in view of the order of the Commissioner the order of the Assistant Commissioner cannot have legal sanction. I do not agree. The point is what the Commissioner has directed the Assistant Commissioner to do has already been done by the Assistant Commissioner and that order has not been set aside. Therefore there is absolutely no difficulty in holding that R. Kandaswamy is a validly appointed trustee of the temple. Only thereafter R. Kandaswamy has been elected as Managing Trustee. Certainly under S. 28 of the H. R. and C. E. Act any of the trustees has the right to file a suit in the interest of the temple. For these reasons I hold that there is no merit in the contention that R. Kandaswamy is not competent to file the suits as Managing Trustee of the plaintiff temple. 8. As regards the second point, as against the arrears of rent claimed the defendants contended that they had already deposited the arrears of rent in the Bank. But the first appellate Court has pointed out that this fact has not been mentioned even in the reply notices sent by the defendants to the notices issued by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not been informed that the defendants had deposited the arrears in the bank before the suit. But the first appellate Court has pointed out that this fact has not been mentioned even in the reply notices sent by the defendants to the notices issued by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not been informed that the defendants had deposited the arrears in the bank before the suit. It does not appear to be the case of the defendants that the plaintiff refused to receive rent when tendered. Since the plaintiff did not know that rents have been deposited in bank they have filed the suit for arrears of rent also and for that they had to incur cost. This being the position it cannot be a grievance that while dismissing the suit as against the claim of arrears of rent no cost has been awarded to the defendants. The question of awarding cost or not is a matter of discretion of the Court. Both the Courts below have held the view that the defendants shall not be allowed costs. I do not see any compelling reason to differ from that finding. Therefore the second point also has to fail. 9. In the result all the four second appeals are dismissed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.