Judgment :- The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thiagaraja Swamy Thirukoi, in declining to recognize the petitioner as tenant, has invoked the writ jursidiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is pleaded case of petitioner that she is residing at the residential house bearing Door No.40B/5 at Kullunthankullam South Bank Street, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District situated in Survey No.2788/2A1B, No.3, South Sethi Village measuring 2457 sq.ft. The land and building in possession of petitioner admittedly belong to the Temple. 3. It is pleaded that the Temple owns several properties in Thanjavur District. The temple is regulated by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (H.R.&C.E.) Board. The rules and regulations framed under H.R.&C.E. are binding on the respondent no.1. 4. It is submitted by petitioner that earlier the husband of petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 26 years during his lifetime. The Revenue Officials, after conducting enquiry regarding possession, vide order dated 27.03.1992, sub divided the property into Survey No.2788/2A1 and 2788/2AB. It is submitted, that in view of sub division of the survey number in two sub divisions, the one was in possession and enjoyment of the husband of the petitioner in his own right. The petitioner, being the legal heir of her deceased husband, is, thus, entitled to inherit the tenancy right. 5. It is not disputed that neither petitioner nor her husband ever paid any rent to the Temple. Nor there is any document placed on record to prove the tenancy of the husband of petitioner. 6. It is submitted that, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e., the 2nd respondent is taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the property in her possession, which had forced the petitioner to file application with respondent no.1, for recording petitioner as the tenant of the property in her possession. 7. The respondent no.1 did not take any action on the representation filed by petitioner, which forced her to file W.P.No.13465 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court by directing respondent no.1, to pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by petitioner. 8. 7. The respondent no.1 did not take any action on the representation filed by petitioner, which forced her to file W.P.No.13465 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court by directing respondent no.1, to pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by petitioner. 8. The operative part of the order passed by this Court reads as under: "...Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the 1st respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such representation is made, thereafter the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and the 2nd respondent within a period of eight weeks. In the meantime, if the petitioner is in possession of the property her possession shall not be disturbed and status quo as on date shall be maintained till such orders are passed..." 9. In compliance to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation, requesting respondent no.2 to record the petitioner as tenant of the property in her possession. As directed by this Court, an enquiry was held by respondent no.1 in which the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 participated. 10. In view of the pleadings and stand taken by the respective parties, and by considering the record maintained by the Temple, respondent no.1 held that as per the Temple record, it is respondent no.2, who is recognized as the Tenant. There was entry in favour of the husband of the petitioner, accepting him as the tenant of the property, said to be in his possession. 11. A finding of fact is also recorded, that the petitioner has illegally encroached part of the property, belonging to the Temple without any authority of law, which does not entitle petitioner to claim tenancy right or to have her name entered as tenant in the record maintained by the Temple. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no.1, while passing the impugned order, has failed to take note of the fact, that the survey number in possession of respondent no.2 was sub divided by the Revenue Officials, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not a tenant. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no.1, while passing the impugned order, has failed to take note of the fact, that the survey number in possession of respondent no.2 was sub divided by the Revenue Officials, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not a tenant. It is however not disputed, that before subdividing the survey number, no notice was issued to Temple, though it is the owner of the property 13. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The tenancy cannot be claimed on the basis of unauthorized occupation, as the tenancy is created by bilateral act between the landlord and the tenant. The bilateral act can be presumed only in case there is some material on record like payment of rent or acceptance by the Landlord, the right of a tenant to continue in possession. 14. It is admitted case, that name of the husband of petitioner was never registered as tenant. It is also admitted that neither the petitioner nor her husband ever paid any rent to the Temple, which could entitle the petitioner to claim tenancy right. 15. It may also be noticed that the husband of petitioner was staying with her mother, who was recorded as the tenant, therefore, possession of the husband of petitioner was permissive possession with the tenant without any consideration, which does not entitle the petitioner to claim the right of tenancy, and to have her name registered in the tenants' register. 16. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.