JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision Petition arises out of the Fair and Decretal Order dated 20.10.2004 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 8 of 1990 on the file of the III Small Causes Court, Chennai. The above Ejectment suit came to be filed by A/m. Karaneeswarar Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, the Revision Petitioner herein against the sole respondent. 2. The suit in Ejectment Suit No.8 of 1990 was filed by petitioner herein for the relief of ejectment of the respondent herein from the Plot bearing Door No. 6, Main Street, Karani Thottam, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 more fully described in the Schedule given in the Plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent and consequent termination of the tenancy. This suit was resisted by the respondent / defendant and after trial the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit by her impugned Fair and Decretal Order dated 20.10.2004. This Order is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court by the petitioner. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this suit is that the said Plot was given by the petitioner to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- from the year 1983 and the tenancy is according to English Calendar month. In addition to the rent the respondent / defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.2/- per annum being Utsavavari (Festival Tax) at the time of annual Brahmotchavam of the temple. As the respondent committed default in payment of rent, the petitioner issued a notice dated 30.09.1989 to her, thereby terminating the tenancy ending with the month of October, 1989 and called upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 01.11.1989. The petitioner offered a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the superstructure erected by the respondent. As the respondent failed to comply with the said notice, the petitioner has filed this Ejectment Suit. 4. The respondent has filed Written Pleas as well as Additional Written Pleas, whereby, though she has questioned the quantum of rent claimed by the petitioner, she has claimed to have paid the entire arrears of rent and also the enhanced Fair Rent up to date. 4. The respondent has filed Written Pleas as well as Additional Written Pleas, whereby, though she has questioned the quantum of rent claimed by the petitioner, she has claimed to have paid the entire arrears of rent and also the enhanced Fair Rent up to date. The respondent further contended that after the City Tenants Protection Act was amended by Act 2/1996, the trustees of the Petitioner Temple lured the respondent to pay the arrears of rent at an enhanced rate of Rs.125/- per month and assured the respondent that on payment of the arrears of rent in such enhanced manner, this Ejectment Suit will be withdrawn. Though the respondent paid the entire arrears of rent as demanded, the Ejectment Suit was not withdrawn. Instead, the Trustees of the Petitioner Temple arbitrarily enhanced the rent exorbitantly to Rs.600/- per month and threatened to proceed with this suit if the respondent failed to pay the enhanced rent as demanded. The respondent had paid this enhanced rent also and as there was no arrears of rent she prayed for the dismissal of this suit. 5. The arguments advanced by Mr. A.K. Sriram for M/s. A.S. Kailasam Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The certified copy of the impugned Order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 6. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. But the respondent has examined herself as RW1 and marked two documents, one being the notice dated 30.09.1989 issued by the petitioner and the other being a Letter dated 20.02.1992 issued by the petitioner to the Manager, Velalar Cooperative Society expressing no objection for the sanction of loan to the respondent for carrying out additional construction work in her residential building. Before the Ejectment Suit could be disposed off, the City Tenants Protection Act was amended by Act 2 of 1996, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in N. Sreedharan Nair And Ors. Vs. Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal, reported in (2003) 2 MLJ 164 . Before the Ejectment Suit could be disposed off, the City Tenants Protection Act was amended by Act 2 of 1996, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in N. Sreedharan Nair And Ors. Vs. Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal, reported in (2003) 2 MLJ 164 . The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that by virtue of this amendment the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act is no longer applicable to the Tenants of the Religious institutions and hence such tenants can no longer claim any benefits under this Act. After trial, the trial Court erroneously held by its Order dated 20.10.2004 in Ejt. Suit No. 8/1990 that by virtue of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996, the City Tenants Protection Act is not applicable to both the Temple as well as the tenant and further held that consequently the Petitioner Temple is precluded from initiating Ejectment Proceedings and dismissed the suit. As against this Fair Order and Decretal Order the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. In view of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted his arguments urging this court to allow this Civil Revision Petition , set aside the trial court s impugned Fair and Decretal Order and decree the suit as prayed for. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. V. Gopalakrishnan appearing for the respondent/defendant contended that the said Act as amended has not given any liberty to any Religious Institution or Temple to act in a high handed and arbitrary manner and also to abuse the Judicial Proceedings. He further submitted that when this Revision Petition was pending and when the respondent made some arrangements to carry out some repair works in her building, the petitioner Temple has filed a Civil Suit against her in O.S.No.1014 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for the relief of Permanent Injunction and produced a copy of the Plaint filed by the Petitioner in this suit. A perusal of this plaint reveals that the respondent herein who is the 1stdefendant in that civil suit is called as a trespasser, and also in wrongful / illegal occupation of the suit land belonging to the Petitioner Temple, while the same petitioner has unequivocally recognized and acknowledged this respondent as a tenant in this Ejectment Suit. A perusal of this plaint reveals that the respondent herein who is the 1stdefendant in that civil suit is called as a trespasser, and also in wrongful / illegal occupation of the suit land belonging to the Petitioner Temple, while the same petitioner has unequivocally recognized and acknowledged this respondent as a tenant in this Ejectment Suit. I have no hesitation to hold that this prevarication of the petitioner not only amounts to abusing the process of the Court but also amounts to nothing short of committing perjury. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in the above said Civil Suit in O.S. No.1014 of 2013 the petitioner herein has examined in chief its Executive Officer as PW1 and the Cross examination had commenced about eighteen months ago. When it was pointed out during his cross examination that the petitioner Temple has not produced all the documents relied on in the Chief Examination of PW1, the Cross examination was adjourned for more than 18 months and the learned counsel for the respondent states that neither the documents were produced nor PW1 presents himself for being cross examined till date. Again the petitioner herein has not denied this claim of the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant further submits that when this Revision Petition is pending before this Court and the above said suit in O.S. No. 1014 of 2013 is also pending before the learned II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai the petitioner Temple has published a Public Notice in many of the Newspapers in circulation. One such publication is produced by the respondent. Under this Public Notice, the petitioner Temple has called for applications from all sub tenants and the legal heirs of the original tenants for the regularization of their occupation of the Temple properties. One such publication is produced by the respondent. Under this Public Notice, the petitioner Temple has called for applications from all sub tenants and the legal heirs of the original tenants for the regularization of their occupation of the Temple properties. It is relevant to note that in the above said suit in O.S.No.1014 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai the petitioner herein has taken a stand that in respect of the suit property the mother of the respondent by name Smt. Parvathi Ammal is the registered tenant and that the respondent has neither informed the Temple about the death of her mother nor registered her name as a legal heir of Smt. Parvathi Ammal and consequently the respondent is in illegal occupation of the suit premises as a trespasser. Pursuant to this Public Notice the respondent herein has submitted her application dated 20.11.2014 for the regularization and requested the authorities to register the tenancy in the name of her two sons and a daughter as the respondent is 96 years old. 10. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances and also the fact that the respondent is a 96 years old bed ridden widow, when this Revision Petition along with another similar CRP No. 440/2005was listed before my brother Judge Mr. M. Duraiswamy. J, on 07.09.2016 he passed the following Order: 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents, it is open to the respondents to give representations to the petitioner / Temple for continuing their tenancy in their favour within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on receipt of the representations from the respondents, the Petitioner / The Executive Officer consider the respondents representation sympathetically taking into consideration of their advanced age. 3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents have paid the fair rents, as demanded by the petitioner, subsequent to the filing of the ejectment suits. Post the matter on 30.9.2016. Pursuant to this Order dated 07.09.2016 the respondent has submitted her representation on 12.09.2016. But even after the lapse of four months, the Petitioner / Executive Officer has not considered their representation. 11. Though this Court directed to post the matter on 30.09.2016 it was posted only after three months. Post the matter on 30.9.2016. Pursuant to this Order dated 07.09.2016 the respondent has submitted her representation on 12.09.2016. But even after the lapse of four months, the Petitioner / Executive Officer has not considered their representation. 11. Though this Court directed to post the matter on 30.09.2016 it was posted only after three months. But even then the Petitioner / Executive Officer had not complied with the Order. When the matter was posted on 12.01.2017, taking into consideration of the advanced age of the respondent and also to give one more opportunity to the petitioner the following Order was passed by me: Accordingly the Petitioner / Executive Officer in both the Civil Revision Petitions is hereby directed to consider the representations of the respondents dated 12.09.2016 and pass orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, suo moto contempt will be initiated against the Petitioner / Executive Officer for disobedience of the Order passed by this Court. Post on 23.01.2017. 12. On 27.01.2017 when the matter was listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executive Officer of the Petitioner Temple has no jurisdiction to consider the representation of the respondent and only the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Chennai has jurisdiction and requested this Court to issue suitable directions to the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai. Thereupon the following order was passed by me on 27.01.2017: (a) The respondent / tenant in both Civil Revision Petitions are hereby directed to file their representation as per the order passed by this Court dated 07.09.2016 within a period of one week from today to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai. (b) On receipt of such representations, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai is hereby directed to consider and pass orders on the same by giving personal opportunity to them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representations. (c) The Registry is directed to post these Civil Revision Petitions on 03.03.2017. 13. (c) The Registry is directed to post these Civil Revision Petitions on 03.03.2017. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that instead of passing an order on the representation of the respondent within four weeks as ordered by this Court, the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai in total defiance took his own time and passed his order on 25.05.2017, i.e. four months later. A copy of this Order is produced by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai has not only failed to declare the respondent as a tenant but also failed to quantify and fix the rent. Instead, he has relegated this work to the Executive Officer of the Petitioner Temple, who is said to be not having jurisdiction to do this job. The Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai has also ordered directing the respondent to accept the undisclosed or unfixed rent and further directed the respondent to pay whatever rent fixed by the Executive Officer retrospectively from 01.07.2016 and also deposit ten months rent as advance. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted further that when this Ejectment Suit has been filed only against the respondent, long after the death of her mother Smt. Parvathi Ammal, the Executive Officer has given a statement during the enquiry that this Ejectment Suit was originally filed against Smt. Parvathi Ammal and on her death the respondent has impleaded herself as the legal heir. This is not true, but the conduct of the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai accepting this erroneous statement of the Executive Officer without verifying the records proves that he has not applied his mind while passing the said order dated 25.05.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.9115/2017/R dated 25.05.2017. 15. Citing the above infirmities the respondent did not accept this order of the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai and filed a Memo dated 15.11.2017 in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the respondent is aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai she can challenge it in some other proceedings and urged this Court to allow this Revision Petition and decree the suit as prayed for. 16. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai has passed the above said order only at the directions of this Court and not either independently on his own accord or pursuant to the public notice published earlier by the Executive Officer of the Petitioner / Temple. As the order passed by the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai is not in compliance with the directions given by this Court, it is ultra vires of the Order of this Court and hence I am striking it down as non-est in law. 17. It has to be borne in mind that this is a 27 years old litigation and the respondent is a 96 year old widow. It will be inhuman to direct her to work out her remedy in some other proceedings at her advanced age. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that it is always open for the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai to initiate proceedings against the respondent under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act as the respondent is in illegal occupation. To counter this submission the respondent has produced the copy of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act in Na.Ka.No.850/2009/A2 dated 19.02.2016 calling upon the respondent to appear before him on 06.04.2016 and show cause why she should not be evicted from the suit premises. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the two sons of the respondent appeared before the said Joint Commissioner and explained to him about their mother s health and her tenancy for several decades and produced the rental receipts issued to her by the petitioner / Temple for the rent paid up to date. He further submitted that after perusing the rent receipts the said Joint Commissioner terminated this proceedings initiated by him under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act. The petitioner has neither denied this submission nor produced any record to repudiate the claim of the respondent. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not very particular and sincere in evicting the respondent from the suit premises. The petitioner has neither denied this submission nor produced any record to repudiate the claim of the respondent. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not very particular and sincere in evicting the respondent from the suit premises. Whereas on more than one occasion, even after filing this Ejectment Suit, the petitioner has conducted himself in such a manner affirming the tenancy of the respondent. Hence he prayed that complete justice would be rendered to both parties herein if this 27 year old litigation is determined in such a manner, which would be beneficial to both parties. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others ( (1995) 6 SCC 749 ) followed by this Court in N.K.T. National Girls Higher Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu And. (1999) I MLJ 11. 20. Following the above said decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court I intend to do complete justice to both parties as follows: (a) I direct the Petitioner Temple to record the name of the respondent as a tenant in their Registry with immediate effect. (b) The fair rent was fixed on 14.09.2010 as per the Form I notification issued by the Petitioner / Temple and produced by the respondent, who further claims that such fair rent is being paid by her up to date. As the rental income is the major source of income for the Petitioner Temple to meet its maintenance costs, the Petitioner Temple would be at liberty to revise and fix the Fair Rent afresh. But the proceedings for the fixation of the revised Fair Rent should be conducted and made applicable simultaneously to all other tenants of the Petitioner Temple also and the respondent herein should not be singled out in a discriminatory manner. Such Proceedings should commence immediately without any delay. (c) It is made clear that such revised Fair Rent should not be collected retrospectively and it will become enforceable only from the date of its notification. With regard to deposit of advance amount, the demand for deposit of 10 months rent appears to be unjust and on the higher side. It would be just and reasonable if 5 months rent is fixed and collected as advance deposit. With regard to deposit of advance amount, the demand for deposit of 10 months rent appears to be unjust and on the higher side. It would be just and reasonable if 5 months rent is fixed and collected as advance deposit. (d) It is also made clear that if the respondent commits default in payment of rent for two consecutive months she shall forfeit all her rights in the suit premises and the petitioner and / or the competent authorities will be at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act for evicting the respondent from the suit premises. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Commissioner of HR & CE, Chennai has not considered the request of the respondent to register the tenancy in the names of her two sons and daughter (being her legal heirs) taking into consideration of her advanced age. I am of the view that such request is premature at this stage. As the two sons and daughter of the respondent are entitled to succeed her tenancy on her death they can approach the concerned authorities of the Petitioner Temple at the appropriate time when necessity arises. 22. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the Order and Decretal Order, dated 20.10.2004 passed in Ejectment Suit No.8 of 1990, on the file of the learned IIIrd Small Causes Court, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.