ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his father Late. Subramania Pillai was a tenant in the house property, more particularly, Door No.51, Ward No.19, Varadarajapuram, East Street, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District for the past 40 years. As a matter of fact, the house belongs to the Third Respondent/Arulmighu Kasiviswanathan Kambaraya Perumal Temple, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. As a matter of fact, his father's name Subramania Pillai was shown in the official records maintained by the Third Respondent/Temple, establishing the tenancy of his father in the said property. 5. The stand of the Petitioner is that his father Late. Subramania Pillai died five years back and he is the only person as his legal heir, who is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Asbestos Sheet House and paying rents to the Third Respondent/Temple. At this stage, the grievance of the Petitioner is that on 17.02.2014, the Third Respondent/Temple issued a communication addressed to him wherein, a sum of Rs.41,640/- was demanded towards the arrears of rent payable in respect of the aforesaid house upto the period 30.11.2013 and if the same was not paid, he would be evicted by using the force. In continuation of the aforesaid Demand Notice/Eviction Notice, the First Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Near Meenakshi Temple, Madurai issued proceedings, dated 26.8.2015 by way of show-cause notice under Section 78(2) of the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Act, 1959 (in short called as the 'Act') requiring him to appear before him at 3.00 p.m. On 30.09.2015 and also stated in the said notice that in the event of failure to appear before him, proceedings under Section 78(4) of the Act would be initiated against him and further, he would be evicted from the property in question. 6. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that during the particular period of issuing the aforesaid proceedings to the Petitioner under Section 78(2) of the 'Act' the Petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and therefore, he left for native treatment to Kerala State and was not present before the First Respondent for the enquiry on 30.09.2015. Further, the First Respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 3.3.2016 wherein, the Petitioner was directed to be evicted immediately and in fact, copy of the order was not served on him. That apart, the Second Respondent/The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Pandyan Nagar, Dindigul by means of proceedings, dated 29.6.2016 issued proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the 'Act', directing the Petitioner to vacate from the house property stating that he is an encroacher and informed that he would be evicted by 13.07.2016. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had paid the outstanding rental amount of Rs.61,068/- to the Third Respondent/ Temple and this itself would vehemently shows that the Petitioner is not keeping any amount towards arrears of rent and has paid the rent in question. 8. It may not be out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that admittedly, the First Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Near Meenakshi Temple, Madurai, had issued a notice to the Petitioner treating him as an encroacher and also called upon him to explain in writing as to why he should not be evicted from the Temple property. Explanation was sought to be submitted by the Petitioner on or before 30.9.2015. Also, a cursory perusal of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1804/2014/A3, dated 29.6.2015 issued by the Second Respondent/The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Pandyan Nagar, Dindigul indicates that the Petitioner had not handed over the property of the Temple after vacating the same and therefore, by exercising the power under Section 79 of the 'Act' the Petitioner was informed that with the help of Police and Revenue Officials, he would be evicted from the property on 13.7.2016 at 11.00 a.m. 9. It is not in dispute that as against the orders passed by the Second Respondent/The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration,Pandyan Nagar, Dindigul, dated 29.6.2015, the Petitioner has a viable, effective, efficacious and alternative remedy of preferring a revision before the Commissioner/competent authority as envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959. Without availing the remedy of preferring a revision before the competent authority/The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Chennai, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is a premature and otiose one. Viewed in that perspective, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to file a revision Petition or to take further proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959 before the competent authority by raising all factual and legal pleas in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, if he so desires/advised, for assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Second Respondent. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Pandyan Nagar, Dindigul, dated 29.6.2015 and the order dated 26.8.2015 passed by the First Respondent. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai Administration, Near Meenakshi Temple, Madurai. In this regard, the Petitioner is granted three weeks time. Till such time, it is abundantly made clear that the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in question. It cannot be gain-said that if the Petitioner files a revision/initiates appropriate further proceedings being aggrieved against the order of the Second Respondent, dated 29.6.2016 or the show-cause notice issued by the First Respondent, dated 26.8.2015, the appropriate authority under the 'Act' shall dispose of the said revision after affording adequate opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.