ORDER : 1. By the consent of the Counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The writ petitioner's family is in possession of the property comprised in S.No.124/11, Chintamani Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. It measures an extent of 0.26 cents. The writ petitioner suffered an order of eviction under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, at the hands of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, in M.P.No.123 of 2017, on 23.05.2018. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and it is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Temple authorities issued a notice under Section 79 of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which necessitated the institution of W.P.(MD)No.18985 of 2018 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 31.08.2018, disposed of the writ petition by recording the undertaking of the respondents that the order dated 18.07.2018 shall be kept in abeyance, till the revision petition is disposed of. A direction was also given for the disposal of the revision petition itself. But then, the revision petition could not be disposed of because of the transfer of the incumbent official. 3. The issue that now arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to perform what is known as 'Kathir Aruppu Mandagapadi' in the disputed property. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a pertinent contention. He submitted that the property in question belongs to the Temple and that an order of eviction has already been passed against the writ petitioner. It is true that the revision petition is pending before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department and that it has been agreed already that the petitioner shall not be disturbed till the disposal of the revision petition. But then, the moot question is whether a person, who questions the very title of the Deity over the property in question, is entitled to honour from the Deity? In other words, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner, by his conduct, has disqualified himself to perform the Mandagapadi. But then, the moot question is whether a person, who questions the very title of the Deity over the property in question, is entitled to honour from the Deity? In other words, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner, by his conduct, has disqualified himself to perform the Mandagapadi. He would draw an analogy from the provisions of the Rent Control Law that a person who was inducted as a tenant is liable to be evicted if he questions the title of the landlord. 5. Faced with this formidable contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner scaled down the relief sought for. He submitted that he would be satisfied if the writ petitioner is allowed to perform the Mandagapadi tomorrow, ie., on 20.01.2019. He further submitted that he would work out his right by filing a petition before the competent authority under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. He also submitted that even though a larger relief had been prayed for in the writ petition, with regard to his possession of the property in question, he would not press the same and he would work out his rights in the pending revision petition. 6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the writ petitioner's family has been performing the Mandagapadi in question over the years is not in dispute. In fact, even in the eviction order dated 23.05.2018, this fact has been duly recorded. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would not contest the assertion that the writ petitioner's family has been performing the Mandagapadi all these years. In fact, during the last year also, the petitioner's family only performed the Mandagapadi. The objection of the learned Standing Counsel is that the writ petitioner after giving a solemn undertaking to hand over possession had gone back on his words. 8. Taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner's family has been performing the Mandagapadi all these years and recording the undertaking given by the writ petitioner as above, this Court directs the fourth respondent to receive the writ petitioner's application for performance of the Mandagapadi, along with the fees. 8. Taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner's family has been performing the Mandagapadi all these years and recording the undertaking given by the writ petitioner as above, this Court directs the fourth respondent to receive the writ petitioner's application for performance of the Mandagapadi, along with the fees. The respondents shall permit the writ petitioner to perform the 'Kathir Aruppu Mandagapadi' as was being performed all these years. This Court, once again, confirms that this relief is applicable only to the current year alone, ie., for the function to be held on 20.01.2019 (tomorrow). The petitioner has agreed not to agitate this issue once again before the Writ Court. He would instead move the competent authority under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. As and when such an application is filed, the authority shall dispose of the same well in time. As regards the other title disputes, the same shall be agitated elsewhere. 9. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.