JUDGMENT (Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 19.09.2013 issued by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to fix fair rent in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.30097 of 2013 dated 08.11.2012.) 1. This petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned notice dated 19.09.2013 issued by the respondent and direct the respondent to fix fair rent in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.30097 of 2013 dated 08.11.2012. 2. It is an unfortunate case where the writ petition, challenging the impugned notice terminating the tenancy in respect of a temple property is listed for hearing 9 years after filing of the writ petition. The first petitioner is the wife of Mr.T.K.Kumarasamy and other petitioners are the sons of the said Mr.T.K.Kumarasamy. It is the case of the petitioners that vacant land belonging to Sri Valatheeswarar Temple which is under the control of the respondent was leased out to Mr.T.K.Kumarasamy on 29.06.1982. It is admitted that the lease agreement is registered as Doc.No.1907/1982. Stating that the first petitioner's husband took the property as a vacant land, it is contended by the petitioners that the land is used only for residential purpose. Stating that the petitioners are residing in the temple land for the past more than 50 years, the petitioners claim that they have an absolute right to protect their possession so long as they pay the rent. 3. The petitioners admit that even in the year 2002, the petitioners acknowledged the receipt of rent subject to the fixation of fair rent. It is also admitted that proceedings for fixing fair rent was initiated by issuing a notice dated 08.10.2012 and a sum of Rs.32,020/- was fixed as fair rent. After fixing fair rent, it appears that the respondent demanded arrears on the basis of fair rent that was fixed by separate proceedings. The petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30097 of 2012, challenging the fair rent on the ground that proper procedure was not followed for fixing fair rent, and they were not put on notice before fixing fair rent. The petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30097 of 2012, challenging the fair rent on the ground that proper procedure was not followed for fixing fair rent, and they were not put on notice before fixing fair rent. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.11.2012, with a direction to the petitioners to treat the order as show cause notice and to submit their objection. The respondent was directed to pass orders in accordance with law. Thereafter a notice terminating tenancy is issued by the impugned proceedings. The petitioners have now challenged the notice terminating the tenancy mainly on the ground that the respondent who failed to fix fair rent on the basis of prevailing market rent or value and the guidelines arbitrarily fixed fair rent and started demanding arrears. 4. It is then submitted, that the impugned order terminating tenancy was without prior notice and that therefore the notice terminating the tenancy without issuing show cause notice is invalid and against the principles of natural justice. 5. A lease is also a contract in relation to the immovable property. In this case, a Lease Deed was executed and registered in favour of the first petitioner's husband long back. In view of the fixation of fair rent, the respondent is unable to recover any reasonable rent and the respondent cannot blame for issuing a notice terminating the tenancy. In the present case by issuing termination notice the lease in favour of the petitioners is terminated. Even in the order, it is only stated that further proceedings will be initiated for removal of encroachment and for taking possession. In this case, the petitioners who have not vacated the premises after termination of tenancy are just encroachers. Merely because they are in possession under tenancy for a long number of years, it does not follow that they have a right even after termination of lease. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, a lessor has every right to terminate the tenancy. No show cause notice is necessary. 6. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioners should have been given a fair opportunity before the notice terminating tenancy is wrong. The petitioners have not paid fair rent even though it is admitted that fair rent proceedings were initiated long back. No show cause notice is necessary. 6. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioners should have been given a fair opportunity before the notice terminating tenancy is wrong. The petitioners have not paid fair rent even though it is admitted that fair rent proceedings were initiated long back. Assuming that the fair rent is not fixed by following procedure, the petitioners cannot prevent the respondent from terminating tenancy and prevent the respondent to get possession from the respondent by due process of law. Since this Court has granted interim stay of further proceedings, the respondent has not initiated proceedings for eviction under Section 78 of TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 7. Considering the admitted facts, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have no legal right to challenge the impugned notice and the petitioners cannot prevent the respondent from taking action for terminating tenancy and take possession of the temple property by following due process. 8. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The respondent is directed to initiate action for eviction by referring the matter to Joint Commissioner under Section 78 of the Act and to recover arrears of rent by due process of law.