Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has projected this Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai to consider his representation dated 01.02.2006 and 17.02.2006. Also, the petitioner has sought for an issuance of direction to the Second Respondent/Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Mint Street, Chennai to consider his representation dated 27.02.2006. 2. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on business of plastic fancy items under the name and style of "Plastometal" ever since 1950. He became a tenant of Mrs.Manickammal, a lessee of the second respondent and occupied one shop for carrying his business and the second floor for residential occupation at permises No.9, Lukumdoss, Chennai-3, by virtue of a lease agreement in 1950 and paying regular rents to her. 3. The Second Respondent/Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Chennai filed a suit for eviction against Manickammal namely, the lessor of the petitioner in O.S.No.7200 of 1979. In that suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who noted that the presence of third parties/tenants emphasizing that Marwaris are in possession of the suit property. Inspite of the same, the second respondent had not initiated any proceedings against the actual tenants in occupation. During the pendency of the said suit, Manickammal died and her daughter-in-law Mrs.A.Rajeswariammal was brought on record as legal heir of the deceased. Later, a decree was passed against the petitioner/lessor and the second respondent filed E.P.No.592 of 2002. The petitioner came to know about the Second Respondent/ Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Chennai filing of Execution Petition and to show his bona-fide, he filed a copy of the report of the Advocate Commissioner to the effect that even during the pendency of the suit he and others were in occupation of the row of shops constructed by his lessor and the residential portions in the first and second floors. The petitioner though do not have vested right to occupy the shop excepting the small score of acquiescence of the second respondent, patiently watching him carrying on his business activities in the temple property etc., wrote a letter to the second respondent on 27.02.2006 to recognise him as a tenant expressing his willingness to pay the rental arrears payable by him and the judgment debtor of the second respondent. He also expressed his desire that he was willing to pay rental advance too, if required. Likewise, he wrote a letter to the first respondent on 01.02.2006 and 17.02.2006 seeking his good office to sympathetically consider the plight of the bonafide occupants whose livelihood is dependant on the discretion of the respondents. He came to know that first respondent gave certain directions in Na.Ka.No.65245/78 dated 29.08.1978 to consider the case of the like nature of the petitioner. 4. The main prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for passing of an order by this Court in directing the first and second respondents to consider his representation dated 01.02.2006, 17.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 respectively. 5. The Second Respondent/Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Chennai filed a detailed counter by mentioning that Devasthanam is the owner of the property bearing previous No.12, Old No.9 and New No.8, Lukumdoss Street, Chennai600 003 and one Manickammal was the tenant in respect of the property. After terminating the tenancy of Manickammal, the temple filed O.S.No.7200 of 1979. The said Manickammal died during the pendency of the suit and therefore, A.Rajeswari and Saroopakara Chetty were added as legal heirs of the deceased. They filed written statement and the suit was decreed on 19.02.1993. The Second Respondent/Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Chennai filed E.P.No.592 of 2002. In the execution petition, the defendant/judgment debtors entered their appearance and projected their counter. They filed petition under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code and the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, in the execution proceedings delivery was ordered by the Executing Court at the time of execution of warrant. It came to light that the judgment debtor inducted the present petitioner and three others in the suit property. Therefore, the second respondent preferred E.A.No.569 of 2005 for removal of obstruction and the petitioner filed counter etc. In view of the fact that legal proceedings are pending, the matter could not be settled without the orders of the First Respondent/Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai as per Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. 6. Further, in the counter it was contended that the petitioner was not given the area of the shop and residential portion said to be in his occupation and the amount of rent offered by him. 6. Further, in the counter it was contended that the petitioner was not given the area of the shop and residential portion said to be in his occupation and the amount of rent offered by him. Without specific area being given, the fair damages for wrongful use and occupation of the property by the petitioner could not be worked out. 7. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent informs this Court that based on the letter of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai-34 in Na.Ka.No.1999/2008/A3 dated 08.04.2008, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to treat him/consider his case as a tenant and also, he has directed to expedite E.A.No.569 of 2005 pending before the Execution Court. As such, it is candidly clear, the request of the petitioner to treat him as a tenant of the Second Respondent/Devasthanam was not acceded to by the appropriate authority, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.