ORDER : 1. The order issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 28.02.2013 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The first respondent/The Commissioner, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai, passed the said order under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the property in dispute which belongs to the Temple and the subject matter of the Revision petition was originally owned and possessed by one Sengole Math and Mr. Vanninathan. The said Mr. Vanninathan, who was in possession of the said Temple property, constructed a building and was running a Hotel business in the name and style of New College Cafe. The said Thiru Vanninathan had sold a portion of the property comprised in Block No. 12, T.S. No. 34 in favour of one Mr. Jeyaraman in the year 1994, who was also carrying on the hotel business and simultaneously, the said Mr. Vanninathan had continued his hotel business till the year 1998. The said Mr. Jeyaraman was unable to continue the hotel business and he leased out the said portion in favour of Mr. Vanninathan. 4. The writ petitioner, Mr. Dhanasekaran entered into a lease agreement with the said Mr. Jeyaraman and the legal heirs of Mr. Vanninathan for the purpose of continuing the hotel business in the year 1996. 5. Meanwhile, the said Mr. Jeyaraman has filed the Civil Suit in O.S. No. 211 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi for a Declaration of title against the third respondent Temple and for a Permanent Injunction. The writ petitioner was arrayed as the second defendant and his brother was also a party in the Civil Suit as third defendant. The Suit was dismissed and the relief sought for in the suit has not been granted to the plaintiff. However, the writ petitioner was running the restaurant as a Joint Family business as per the family partition. 6. Under these circumstances, the third respondent Temple authorities initiated steps for the eviction of the writ petitioner and their family members by invoking Section 78 of the Act. However, the writ petitioner was running the restaurant as a Joint Family business as per the family partition. 6. Under these circumstances, the third respondent Temple authorities initiated steps for the eviction of the writ petitioner and their family members by invoking Section 78 of the Act. The writ petitioner filed his objections before the second respondent/Joint Commissioner by stating that the petition filed by the third respondent is not maintainable on the ground that the Temple is not at all the owner of the property and the competent Civil Court has made a finding in favour of Sengole Math. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the second respondent has taken an erroneous decision in favour of the Temple. Thus, he was constrained to move the first respondent/Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act. 8. Initially, the Revision petition filed by the writ petitioner had not been entertained and subsequently, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 14063 of 2012, the Revision petition had been entertained and the final order has been passed, which is now under challenge in the present writ petition. The first respondent/The Commissioner rejected the revision on the ground of maintainability and more specifically, by stating that the Civil Court alone is competent in respect of deciding the title and ownership in respect of the immovable property under Section 79 of the Act. Thus, the Commissioner cannot decide these questions and in this view of the matter, the Revision petition filed by the writ petitioner had been initially rejected. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 opposed the contentions of the writ petitioner by stating that the third respondent Temple is the owner of the property. The suit filed by Mr. Jeyaraman was dismissed by the Civil Court. It is apparent that the writ petitioner is in connivance with the erstwhile lease holders had wrongfully enjoyed the Temple property for so many years without paying the lease amount/monthly rent. The lease granted in favour of the erstwhile lessees had also lapsed. The writ petitioner had also entered into a lease agreement with the third respondent and thereafter, the lease period expired. The lease agreement had not been renewed by the third respondent Temple. The lease granted in favour of the erstwhile lessees had also lapsed. The writ petitioner had also entered into a lease agreement with the third respondent and thereafter, the lease period expired. The lease agreement had not been renewed by the third respondent Temple. Thus, the writ petitioner was in unauthorized occupation and accordingly, he was treated as an encroacher and an action under Section 78 of the Act was initiated by the competent authorities for eviction. There is no irregularity in respect of the eviction of the writ petitioner in view of the fact that he is not a lease holder nor permitted by the Temple authorities to continue in the Temple premises. For all purposes, the writ petitioner is to be treated as an encroacher under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the actions initiated by the Temple authorities are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent also reiterated that the property in question belongs to the third respondent Temple and the original lessees had colluded with the writ petitioner and their family members are enjoying the property by conducting the hotel business for the past many years without even paying the monthly rent. The statement given by the third respondent states as under: xxx xxx xxx 11. As per the statement, the writ petitioner is liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 35,24,266/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six). In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is not entitled to continue in the premises and the respondents are entitled to collect the arrears of rent to be paid to the Temple from the writ petitioner under the provisions of law. 12. When the matter was listed for hearing on 22.06.2018, this Court acknowledged the statement of arrears of rent submitted by the third respondent, and directed the writ petitioner through his learned counsel to ascertain, whether the rent due to the third respondent Temple has been settled by the writ petitioner or not. In fact, the writ petitioner has not paid the monthly rent to the third respondent Temple for the past about 20 years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not the owner of the property. He claims as a lease holder. In fact, the writ petitioner has not paid the monthly rent to the third respondent Temple for the past about 20 years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not the owner of the property. He claims as a lease holder. When the petitioner himself claims as a lease holder, certainly he is liable to pay the rent. However, it is found that the writ petitioner is not in possession of valid lease agreement and the third respondent Temple also has not entered into any lease agreement with the writ petitioner. The original lease agreement entered between the writ petitioner and the Temple authorities expired long back and the said lease agreement had not been renewed by either of the parties. Thus, as of now, the writ petitioner is in unlawful possession of the property belongs to the third respondent Temple. The arrears of rent is calculated as Rs. 35,24,266/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six) pursuant to the directions of this Court. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a sincere attempt to pursue the writ petitioner in respect of the statement made by the third respondent. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the writ petitioner has not expressed his willingness to pay the arrears of lease amount to the third respondent. Under these circumstances, this Court has to consider the legality of the actions initiated by the respondents 1 to 3. The Temple is the owner of the property. Though certain disputes are raised between the erstwhile lease holder, this Court is of an opinion that such disputes and litigations formulated by these erstwhile lease holders are only with an ulterior motive to grab the Temple property. 14. The Civil Court judgment and decree in O.S. No. 211 of 1999 is enclosed in Page No. 1 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition. In the said Civil Suit, the Sengole Math is not at all a party defendant and therefore, the statement made by the petitioner that Sengole Math is the owner can never be accepted by this Court at this point of time. If at all, the petitioner claims that Sengole Math is the owner, then the said owner must be the party defendant in the Civil proceedings. 15. If at all, the petitioner claims that Sengole Math is the owner, then the said owner must be the party defendant in the Civil proceedings. 15. On a perusal of the entire documents filed, this Court is of an opinion that the erstwhile leaseholders and the writ petitioner and their family members have connived each other and made an attempt to grab the property belongs to the Temple. They have moved the civil litigations in a calculative manner and not paid the rent to the third respondent Temple for the past more than 20 years. 16. This Court is surprised, why the competent authorities of the department are sleeping over and not initiating any steps to recover the property and also to recover the arrears of monthly rent. When the present writ petition is taken up for final hearing, the third respondent furnished a statement by stating that the arrears of monthly rent is Rs. 35,24,266/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six) and the amount is due from the year 2001 onwards. No files are produced before this Court to show that the departmental officials were vigilant in maintaining the Temple property and recovering the monthly rent due to the Temple. Certainly such an Act of the Executive officer concerned and the higher officials concerned are not only negligent, they have committed an Act of dereliction on duty, and caused financial loss to the Temple. 17. In this regard, this Court is having a reasonable doubt that there is a possibility of clear collusion by the department officials with these petitioners and the erstwhile leaseholders. Without the connivance of the department officials, it may not be possible for the individuals to remain in the Temple premises without any authority for the past so many years, more specifically, without even paying the monthly rent. Certainly, it is a shocking affair occurring in the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Court would like to ask one question. If it is the property of the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, will they allow such property to be in the possession of an unauthorized person? Without even payment of any rent, the attitude of the prudent public servant is to be examined in this perspective. The Court would like to ask one question. If it is the property of the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, will they allow such property to be in the possession of an unauthorized person? Without even payment of any rent, the attitude of the prudent public servant is to be examined in this perspective. If the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner will not allow any unauthorized person to remain in their own property without even paying the rent, how will they allow the same unauthorized person to remain in the Temple property without even paying the rent for the past 20 years? 18. Thus, undoubtedly, the incident is a sad state of affairs and the authorities competent are certainly answerable to the public and the accountability and integrity of these officials are to be tested. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture, requested the Court that some reasonable time may be granted for the writ petitioner to vacate the premises as he is running a hotel business and lot of materials are kept in the hotel premises. The fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be appreciated, this Court is of an opinion that reasonable time is to be granted for the writ petitioner to vacate the premises. 20. (i) In this view of the matter, the first respondent/The Commissioner is directed to refer the issues to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to investigate the aspects regarding collusion between these officials for such unauthorized occupation for the past more than two decades without even paying the monthly rent to the Temple. (ii) The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, on receipt of such complaint/reference from the first respondent, is directed to conduct an enquiry to find out the facts and the truth behind these affairs. The first respondent on receipt of the report from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department is bound to initiate appropriate actions and prosecutions against all the officials, who have involved in such illegalities, irregularities, negligence, dereliction on duty, and for causing financial loss to the Temple. (iii) The writ petitioner is directed to vacate the Temple premises in entirety within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The writ petitioner is directed to vacate the Temple premises in entirety within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents 1 to 3 are bound to have a constant vigil in this matter and ensure that the petitioner is evicted within a period of eight weeks and take possession of the property and thereafter, take a decision under the provisions of the Act and rules. 21. The claim of the writ petitioner stands rejected and with the above directions issued to the respondents 1 to 3, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.