ORDER 1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.01.2010 made in E.P.No.260 of 2003 in O.S.No.395/1986 directing eviction of the petitioners herein, which decree came to be passed in A.S.No.658/1988 and confirmed in S.A.No.801/1992. 2. Admittedly, the petition property, namely an extent of 1527 sq.ft. of land comprised in T.S.No.52 and 51 part in Block No.6 bearing Devasthanam Plot No.112-B in Door No.66, Ramasamy Garden Street, Adyar, morefully described in the plaint schedule to O.S.No.395/1986, was unauthorisedly occupied by the judgment debtor Nagappan, the father of the revision petitioners. Hence the above said suit was filed for eviction of the said Nagappan and for recovery of possession. After hearing both sides, the learned trial judge, by judgment and decree dated 15.02.1988 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.568/1988. The lower appellate court, after re-appreciation of the evidence and the witnesses, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.02.1988 made in O.S.No.385/1996 and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of possession. Challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.568/1988, the father of the revision petitioners herein/defendant filed S.A.No.801/1992 before this Court. After the dismissal of the second appeal, the respondent Devasthanam (decree holder) levied execution by filing E.P.No.260/2003. 3. From 2003-2008, the judgment debtor Nagappan squatted on the property and evaded execution of the decree for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit property. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor Nagappan is reported dead. Thereafter, the revision petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in the EP. According to the petitioners, the said Nagappan died on 27.02.2007, which fact was not intimated to the decree holder or the Executing Court. However, on 21.05.2008, the Executive Officer of the respondent Devasthanam issued a communication to Nagappan extending an offer to make him a direct tenant of the Devasthanam, provided the said offer would be accepted in writing on or before 10.06.2008. Though the said Nagappan is said to have died on 27.02.2007 i.e. before the issuance of the said communication, it is not in dispute that the sons of the judgment debtor, who are the revision petitioners herein, did receive the said communication addressed to their father. Though the said Nagappan is said to have died on 27.02.2007 i.e. before the issuance of the said communication, it is not in dispute that the sons of the judgment debtor, who are the revision petitioners herein, did receive the said communication addressed to their father. They did not choose to accept the said offer within the time stipulated in the communication dated 21.05.2008. However, the first petitioner seems to have submitted a letter belatedly on 27.08.2008 to the respondent enclosing a banker’s cheque for a sum of Rs.1,17,855/- requesting that he should be recognised as a tenant and the said amount should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and that he was agreeable for fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from January 2008. The said letter issued in reply to the offer made under the communication dated 21.05.2008, is more in the nature of a counter offer. 4. Contending that the said letter dated 27.08.2008 and the acceptance of the banker’s cheque by the respondent crystallised into a fresh contract of lease and that hence the decree obtained in O.S.No.395/1986 had become unenforceable, the revision petitioners filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as E.A.No.8325/2009 in E.P.No.260/2003. The learned Judge of the Executing Court, after hearing, came to a conclusion that the contention of the revision petitioners could not be countenanced as there was no concluded contract which would make the decree for eviction obtained in O.S.No.395/1986 unenforceable. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Executing Court, by order 12.01.2010, dismissed E.A.No.8325/2009 and allowed the E.P.No.260/2003 directing delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and the delivery was directed to be effected by 15.03.2010. Against the said order dated 12.01.2010, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Though the petitioners would have contended that the earlier relationship between the father of the petitioners and the respondent came to an end by crystallisation of a new contract of lease between the first petitioner and the respondent and that therefore, the decree obtained against their father has become unenforceable. 6. 5. Though the petitioners would have contended that the earlier relationship between the father of the petitioners and the respondent came to an end by crystallisation of a new contract of lease between the first petitioner and the respondent and that therefore, the decree obtained against their father has become unenforceable. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent that though an offer came to be made on 21.05.2008 to recognise the judgment debtor to be a direct lessee under the respondent Devasthanam, such an offer was made subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.340 Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information (R.E.4-2) Department dated 06.08.2007 and 31.10.2007, together with a further condition that acceptance of such an offer should be communicated in writing on or before 10.06.2008; that such an offer was not accepted within the time stipulated therein and that therefore, the letter dated 27.08.2008 should be considered only as a fresh offer made by the first petitioner, which did not crystallize into a concluded contract. It is the further contention of the respondent that even if the temple authority arrived at a consensus with the occupier of the property regarding the proposed lease, unless and until a proper lease is created in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the rules made thereunder, the petitioner cannot claim that they have become tenants in their own right and hence the decree obtained against their father has become unenforceable. The above said contention raised by the respondent is quite tenable. 7. Chapter VII of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 provides for summary eviction of encroachers by an order of the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE. The respondent Devasthanam, without adopting the easier method found in Chapter VII of the Act, chose to file a regular suit for eviction of the encroacher and for recovery of possession and succeeded in getting a decree. Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 says that any lease of the immovable property of the Religious institution for a term exceeding five years shall be null and void, unless the same is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 says that any lease of the immovable property of the Religious institution for a term exceeding five years shall be null and void, unless the same is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. The section also contains an explanation for the term that though the lease of the property shall be for a term not exceeding five years, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term so that the aggregate period will exceed five years, such lease shall be deemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years. 8. In this case, an offer came to be made pursuant to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.340 Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information (R.E.4-2) Department dated 06.08.2007 and 31.10.2007. The acceptance of the said offer alone would not have crystallised into a concluded lease arrangement. The terms of the lease, namely period of lease, monthly rent to be paid and right of renewal subject to any condition or without such condition, shall have to be discussed and agreed upon. If upon such a discussion, an agreement emerges for the execution of a lease deed granting lease for a period not exceeding five years without any clause for renewal, then no sanction under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act would be necessary. If the period exceeds five years or if the lease deed contains a renewal clause, which shall take the aggregate period to more than five years, then such a lease has to be sanctioned by the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 9. The above said discussions will make it clear that the conditional offer made in the communication dated 21.05.2008 and the belated acceptance which is more as a counter offer than as an acceptance, would not have crystallised into a concluded contract of lease as contended by the revision petitioners. Unless and until the terms of the lease are settled, one cannot come to a conclusion whether the same needs a sanction to be obtained from the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. In any event, the petitioners themselves contended that the agreed fresh lease is for a period exceeding one year. Unless and until the terms of the lease are settled, one cannot come to a conclusion whether the same needs a sanction to be obtained from the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. In any event, the petitioners themselves contended that the agreed fresh lease is for a period exceeding one year. Hence such lease of immovable property has to be made only by a registered document as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Admittedly no such registered lease deed has been executed. Hence this court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioners that the communications between the petitioners and the respondent Devasthanam crystallised into a lease making the decree passed in the suit O.S.No.395/1986 unexecutable, cannot be countenanced. The learned Judge of the Executing Court rightly rejected their contention and dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 47of the Code of Civil Procedure, besides directing delivery of possession of the suit property. This court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned judge of the Executing Court impugned in this revision. There is no merit in the revision and the same deserves dismissal. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Since the first petitioner has expressed his readiness to become a direct tenant under the Devasthanam, besides making payment of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation, such a proposal can be considered after the petitioners surrender possession in accordance with the decree passed in E.P.No.260/2003. It is open to the respondent Devasthanam to initiate proceedings for grant of a fresh lease in favour of either the first petitioner or in favour of both the petitioners and this order shall not be an impediment for the Devasthanam to do so. Petition dismissed.