Judgment : Dharma Rao Elipe, J. The present writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5277 of 2006. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner forbearing the respondents 1 and from cancelling the lease-hold right of the petitioner or evicting him from the paddy field comprised in R.S. No. 534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 of an extent of 0.84.5 area in Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District except due process of law. 2. The learned single Judge on the basis of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of the writ petition who is the Executive Officer of the temple that he has taken possession of the land as early as 2004 and that the fifth respondent is paying rent to him. Further, the respondents 3 and 4 who have claimed to be in possession of the said property through the writ petitioner as sub-lessees. The respondents 3 and 4 filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2005 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for the relief of permanent injunction and not to disturb the possession against the temple and the same is dismissed. Therefore, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that it can be resolved only by letting in evidence by the parties. 3. Against which the writ appeal is filed contending that the decision of the learned single Judge is against the law. Further, contended that the learned single Judge has failed to note that the lease in favour of the petitioners father in respect of paddy field comprised in R.S. No.534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 of an extent of 0.84.5 acres situate in Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District was not in dispute and on his death, the lease hold right in the property devolved upon the petitioner by way of a family arrangement. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition is illegal. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of the writ petition stated that the possession of the petitioner is admitted by way of initiating proceedings under the revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition should not have dismissed. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition is illegal. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of the writ petition stated that the possession of the petitioner is admitted by way of initiating proceedings under the revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition should not have dismissed. Further contended that the 5th respondent cannot be authorised to recover the possession of the property in question after dismissal of the suit tiled by the respondents 3 and 4 who are the sub-lessees of the petitioner. Further contended that as per procedures contemplated under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the area has, to be recovered not by the provisions of the revenue recovery proceedings Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. It is in the interest of justice and to understand the issue in the writ petitions brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: It is submitted that paddy field comprised in R.S. No.534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 of an extent of 0.84.5 acres situate in Thazhakudy Village, Thovalai Taluk Kanyakumari District belongs to Thazhayil Kandan Sastha Temple controlled by the 2nd respondent herein was originally leased to Chidamharathanu Pillai who was cultivating the lands till he died on 20.3.1985 and thereafter by way of family arrangement the leasehold right, over the paddy field fell to the petitioners share and he was cultivating the same as lessee. Further, it is submitted that this second respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.150 of 1999 before the Principal Sub-Court, Nagercoil against the claiming arrears of patton admitting his status as lessee of the said lands under the 2nd respondent. Further it is submitted that he could not carry on the cultivating but he assigned the leasehold right upon the property on 1.8.1997 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The decree was also passed on the suit for recovery of arrears along with costs. Thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 after dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.150 of 1999 the second respondent resorted to record the same by invoking the revenue recovery proceedings Act. The decree was also passed on the suit for recovery of arrears along with costs. Thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 after dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.150 of 1999 the second respondent resorted to record the same by invoking the revenue recovery proceedings Act. Meanwhile in the year 2005, the respondents 3 and 4 who are claiming possession of the land through the petitioner have filed a suit in O.S. No.39 of 2005 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil against the respondents 2 and 5 for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing their peaceful possession in R.S.No.534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 and ultimately the suit was dismissed holding that the possession of the plaintiffs wherein namely the respondents 3 and 4 is legally recognized as on date. But it is stated that the proceedings are initiated by the second respondent only to recover all the arrears of the rent payable by the writ petitioner to the respondents and the lease granted in favour of the petitioner originally was not cancelled and the possession of the leased out land was not taken by the second respondent by following the procedures contemplated under Sections of 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader supported the contentions raised by the second respondent in the counter affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to cite some provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1950 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) which came into force on 2.10.1959 and extended to the whole State of Tamil Nadu with regard to the administration of the properties of the Religious and Endowment under Section 34 of the Act reads with alienation of immovable trust properly, any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to or given or endowed for the purposes of any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. It contemplates that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published in such manner as may he prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly considered by the Commissioner. Further, provides that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government. Further, it explains that any lease of the property above mentioned though for a term not exceeding five years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term so as to exceed five years in the aggregate, whether subject to any condition or not, be decided to be a lease for a period exceeding five years. 7. In sub-section 2 of 34 of the Act empowers that the Commissioner may impose such conditions and directions regarding the utilization of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage, regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period. 8. Section 34-A of the Act deals with fixation of lease rent and Section 34-B of the Act deals with termination of lease of immovable property, the lease of immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institution shall be liable to be terminated on the nonpayment of the lease rent after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The proceeding to terminate the lease shall be initiated if the time for appeal or revision under sub-section (3) or subsection (5), as the case may he, of Section 34-A has not expired; or the order has been made the subject of such appeal or revision till the disposal of the scatter. Sub-Section 3 of 34-B of the Act states that on the termination of the lease under sub-section (3), the property shall vest with the concerned religious Institution free from all encumbrances and the Executive Officer, the Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case may he, of such religious institution shall take possession of the property including the building or super structure and trees, if any. 9. 9. Section 34-C deals with payment of amount that there shall he paid an amount to the lessee for the building, superstructure and trees, if any, erected or planted in accordance with the terms of agreement or with the permission of the Commissioner by the lessee on the property vested with the religious institution under Section 34-B. 10. Section 34-D deals with bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court that, save as otherwise provided in Section 34-A or 34-C, no suit or other legal proceeding in respect of an order passed under Section 34-A or 34-B or 34-C, as the case may be shall be instituted in any Court of law. 11. Therefore, from the above provisions of law, the claim of the petitioner that his father granted lease but subsequently as per Section 34 of the Act, it is with the Commissioner to grant the lease for a period of five years and thereafter renewing the lease but no such action was initiated by the Commissioner in the interest of temple and also not brought to our notice. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the second respondent has admitted that the petitioner is in possession in the suit schedule property and initiated revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of rent by filing the suit in O.S. No.150 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Nagercoil. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner is having his leasehold right over the suit, schedule property, but instead of cancelling the lease for the default committed by the writ petitioner in the payment of the rent in the suit schedule property as contemplated under Section 34-B of the Act, instructed his lessee 5th respondent to recover of the possession granted from the respondents 3 and 4 who are claiming to be sub-lessees of the writ petitioner. Therefore, after the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent should have initiated proceedings under Section 34-B of the Act terminating the lease and once the lease is terminated in accordance with law the property vested with the second respondent, therefore, the question of law claiming the fifth respondent to recover the suit schedule property from the petitioner or the respondents 3 land 4 is contrary to the provisions of Section 34-B of the Act. 13. 13. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Therefore, as the subsistence of the lease admitted by the second respondent and the Suit is barred by Section 34-C of the Act and filing of the suit by the respondents; 3 and 4 is contrary to Section 34-B, the only course open for the recovery of the suit schedule property by the second respondent is following the procedures as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. Further, with regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the application of Section 78 and 79 of the Act in Chapter VII deals with the encroachments from the petitioner that he claimed possession through his father who is a lessee and which facts are not disputed by the second respondent which cannot be termed as encroachment. This chapter incorporated for a different purpose leasing the land belonged to the religious institutions for the purpose of providing amenities to pilgrims or of vending flowers or other articles used for worship or of holding for specified periods, fairs or exhibitions during festivals connected with religious institution. Therefore, this Chapter is not connected with the present case. As we have discussed above, the Section 34 alone is applicable to the suit schedule property. 14. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the second respondent the suit schedule property was taken possession through 5th respondent after dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2005 is contrary to Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge, accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. However, it is open to the second respondent to recover the possession of the property from the writ petitioner following the procedures contemplated under Section 34-B of the Act. But no costs. Writ appeal allowed.