JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner is in occupation of a shop room bearing No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality, in a building owned by the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, which is located near Kodungallur Bhagavathi Temple, in which he is conducting a hotel by name 'Annapoorna'. According to the petitioner, the hotel was originally run by his father, Gangadharan, from the year 1980, on payment of a monthly rent of Rs.900/-. He died in the year 1986 and thereafter, the petitioner is conducting hotel in the said shop room. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the rental agreement dated 28.09.2007 executed between the 1st respondent Board represented by its Secretary on one part and the petitioner on the other part, in which monthly rent for the shop room, electrical fittings and accessories was fixed as Rs.3,370/-, for a period of three years from 01.02.2007, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As per the schedule to Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled shop room in the Devaswom Building, which is assigned with Door No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality, is having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.). Ext.P3 is a copy of representation dated 30.11.2021 made by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Board, wherein it is stated that he has already remitted monthly rent at the rate of Rs.6,989/- inclusive of November, 2021 and that, he is prepared to pay rent at the same rate for the subsequent period. 2. In the writ petition it is stated that due to the situation prevailing in the State on account of Covid-19 pandemic the number of pilgrims coming to Kondungallur Bhagavathi Temple has been considerably reduced. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to close down the hotel from March, 2020 onwards. Thereafter, the business picked up only recently. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 30.11.2021 before the Secretary of the Board, with a request to revise the monthly rent of the shop room for a period of three years, at a lower rate. The petitioner received Ext.P4 order dated 22.01.2022 of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby he was informed that the request made in Ext.P3 representation cannot be considered, since as per the existing bye-law, monthly rent of the building has to be revised at the rate of 11% in every 11 months. The petitioner received Ext.P4 order dated 22.01.2022 of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby he was informed that the request made in Ext.P3 representation cannot be considered, since as per the existing bye-law, monthly rent of the building has to be revised at the rate of 11% in every 11 months. Further, the rental income from the buildings owned by the Board at Kodungallur is very meagre. In Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner has referred to the report dated 31.12.2021 of the Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvanchikulam, and also the decision taken by the said respondent on 19.01.2022. By Ext.P4 order directs the petitioner to execute fresh agreement in respect of the shop room in question, in terms of the existing bye-law. 3. The petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench in Dr. N.M. Vijayan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board [Ext.P2 judgment dated 01.06.2001 in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases] in order to contend that, the 1st respondent Board, which is a statutory body, cannot act like an ordinary landlord. Therefore, the enhancement of rent that could be demanded by the Board should be at the rate 15% to 20% in every three years. After the execution of Ext.P1 rental agreement on 28.09.2007, the monthly rent was enhanced by the Board at the rate 20%, in every three years. The petitioner’s hotel, considering its location, caters the need of poor pilgrims visiting Kodungallur Bhagavathi Temple. The enhancement of rent at the rate of 11% for every 11 months is highly exorbitant, which will certainly reflect in the price structure of food items that are being served in his hotel. The documents marked as Exts.P5 and P6 are receipts dated 01.02.2022, regarding remittance of a sum of Rs.7,760/- towards rent for the month February, 2022 and a further sum of Rs.2,213/- towards deficit security amount, equivalent to monthly rent at the enhanced rate for three months. 4. According to the petitioner the building is more than 40 years old. The 1st respondent Board cannot act like a private individual and fix the rent as it pleases, without any meeting being convened with the tenants. Ext.P4 order mentions about the bye-law, which cannot be the basis for fixation of rent. In the matter of fixation of rent, Ext.P2 judgment governs and the respondents are bound to strictly comply with the same. Ext.P4 order mentions about the bye-law, which cannot be the basis for fixation of rent. In the matter of fixation of rent, Ext.P2 judgment governs and the respondents are bound to strictly comply with the same. In such circumstances, issuance of Ext.P4 communication by the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner amounts to contempt of court. The respondents have no jurisdiction to go beyond Ext.P2 judgment and act at its whims and fancies. Ext.P4 clearly violates the principles of natural justice. The Board, which is a statutory body, has no jurisdiction to issue proceedings in the nature of Ext.P4, violating Ext.P2 judgment and the principles of natural justice. The stand taken in Ext.P4 order that the rental income from the buildings owned by the Board at Kodungallur is very meagre can never be accepted. If Ext.P4 is implemented, the enhancement will be more than 33% every three years, which is highly exorbitant and against Ext.P2 judgment. Ext.P4 order has been issued totally violating the procedure mentioned in Ext.P2 judgment. The petitioner has no notice about various proceedings mentioned in Ext.P4 order. Thus everything is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On 07.03.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. On 09.03.2022, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that a statement on behalf of the Board is being filed. 6. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Board it is stated that, the petitioner had executed Ext.P1 agreement dated 28.09.2007 in respect of the shop room having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.), as evidenced by the description of shop room in the schedule to that agreement. He is conducting a hotel in that shop room. The bye-law for letting out rooms under the Board has been amended with effect from 01.08.2019, based on the objections/observations made by the Local Fund Audit in the report on the audit of accounts of the Board for the year 2017-18, as per which, the rent fixed in the shopping complexes of the Board are not realistic and is not based on the land value and commercial importance of those areas. The amended bye-law was formulated with effect from 01.08.2019 and agreements were executed in respect of the adjacent shop rooms. The amended bye-law was formulated with effect from 01.08.2019 and agreements were executed in respect of the adjacent shop rooms. In order to substantiate the said fact, Annexure R1(a) licence deed dated 09.09.2021 executed in respect of shop room bearing No.XIII/441 and Annexure R1(b) licence deed 04.10.2021 in respect of the shop room bearing Nos.XIII/447 and XIII/448 are placed on record. The Local Fund Audit in the report on the audit of accounts of the Board for the year 2019-20 again reported that the rate of rent fixed is very low. Annexure R1(c) is the relevant extract of that audit report. That audit report is pending consideration before this Court in DBAR No.3 of 2020, which has already been referred to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. 7. In the statement it is stated that the shop room in question is adjacent to Kodungallur Bhagavathi Temple, in a commercially important locality. The photographs of the shop rooms are marked as Annexure R1(d). The contention of the petitioner that Ext.P4 communication of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner amounts to contempt of court, in view of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases, is incorrect. In fact, this Court had occasion to consider identically situated cases in respect of Cochin Devaswom Board in Annexure R1(E) judgment dated 07.01.2010 in W.P.(C) No.37715 of 2009. Another Division Bench had considered the matter with respect to the building owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board in W.P.(C).No.32975 of 2015. That writ petition was disposed of, by the judgment dated 25.11.2015, holding that Devaswom lands vest in Deities and the Travancore Devaswom Board is essentially a trustee. Therefore, the action of a trustee cannot be equated with that of a mere landlord. The best interest of Devaswoms under the control of the Devaswom Board would be subserved only if income is generated. 8. On 16.03.2022, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that, on actual measurement it was found that the petitioner is in occupation of a larger area. The report of the concerned Assistant Engineer will be placed before the 1st respondent Board for necessary orders on 16.03.2022 and that, an affidavit of the Secretary of the Board shall be placed on record, along with those materials, before the next posting date. 9. The report of the concerned Assistant Engineer will be placed before the 1st respondent Board for necessary orders on 16.03.2022 and that, an affidavit of the Secretary of the Board shall be placed on record, along with those materials, before the next posting date. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 23.03.2022 to the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Board, wherein it is stated that the rate of rent cannot be fixed based on the report of the Local Fund Audit, when it is clear from the statement that the audit report has not become final. The report, if any, by the Local Fund Audit cannot be the criteria for the fixation of rent. Likewise, the bye-law, if any, formulated also cannot be the criteria for the fixation of rent. Bye-law is formulated for the internal management of an organisation and the same cannot have any force of law. The Board has not formulated any guidelines and norms for fixation of rent. Thus, everything is being done as per the whims and fancies of the concerned officials. The Board is bound to formulate the guidelines and norms in the matter of fixation of rent and for letting out of its premises. The petitioner has been trying his level best to cater the needs of the poor pilgrims, who come to worship the Deity of Kodungallur Bhagavathy Temple. Thus huge amounts are not being charged for food items. Prices fixed are low. Thus, the enhancement of the rate of rent arbitrarily will have a bearing on the price of food items, thereby resulting in difficulties for the poor pilgrims. The condition of the room is not all that good, as evident from Exrs.P7 to P9 photographs. Yet the hotel is being run so as to cater the needs of poor people. The statement of the 1st respondent Board does not disclose any reason for enhancement of the rent and that too at an exorbitant rate. No criteria is seen mentioned with regard to the enhancement of rent. The petitioner and other tenants will have to be heard in the matter, by the concerned authorities, to take a decision in the matter of fixation of rent. 10. No criteria is seen mentioned with regard to the enhancement of rent. The petitioner and other tenants will have to be heard in the matter, by the concerned authorities, to take a decision in the matter of fixation of rent. 10. The 1st respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2022, wherein it is stated that the contention that Exhibit P4 communication is one issued in violation of the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases is absolutely untenable. The contention that the respondents have no jurisdiction to fix the rent suo motu is also absolutely untenable and there is no legal basis for such a contention. The allegation that the rent of the building in question is exorbitant is absolutely incorrect. The contention of the petitioner that the bye-law of the Board is not binding on the tenants is untenable. As held by the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] and followed by this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2254 of 2022], it is the duty of the Board to be faithful to the trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. As held by this Court in the aforementioned decision, a trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. As reported by the Local Fund Audit in its report, the rent fixed for the shop rooms in the shopping complexes under the Board is very low when compared to the rent which should have been actually fixed for those rooms. So, the contention of the petitioner that the rent of the shop room in question is exorbitant is absolutely untenable and there is no semblance of truth in it. The Board is only acting as a trustee and as held by this Court the action of the trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interests of the Devaswoms under the control of the Cochin Devaswom Board would be subserved only if income is generated. The Board is only acting as a trustee and as held by this Court the action of the trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interests of the Devaswoms under the control of the Cochin Devaswom Board would be subserved only if income is generated. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.R1(A) judgment dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.32975 of 2015 considered identical situation. After the filing of this writ petition, the concerned Assistant Engineer of the Board conducted an inspection of the building and on measurement it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the Devaswom land and the total area occupied by him is 2,814 sq.ft. (261 sq.mt.) as per Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer on 08.03.2022. The Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvanchikulam Group reported the said fact to the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.R1(C) report dated 11.03.2022, which was placed before the Board. The Board has taken a decision to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for violating the terms of the agreement. The Board has also taken a decision to inspect all the rooms given on rent and necessary directions are issued to the Maramath wing of the Board, as evidenced by Ext.R1(D) order dated 23.03.2022, whereby the concerned officer is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to vecate the area unauthorisedly occupied by him, in excess of 695 sq.ft. 11. By the order dated 28.03.2022, the Chief Vigilance Officer, Cochin Devaswom Board was suo motu impleaded as the additional 5th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board entered appearance for the additional 5th respondent. 12. The reply affidavit filed by the petitioner was followed by another reply affidavit dated 31.03.2022, wherein it is stated that, Ext.R1(A) judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.(C)No.32975 of 2015 is in no way connected with the facts of the present case. The subject matter in the above writ petition was the enhancement of security deposit received by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Board that the petitioner encroached upon the Devaswom land and he is in possession of a total area of 2,814 sq.ft. are totally false. The petitioner has not encroached upon the land belonging to the Board. The allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Board that the petitioner encroached upon the Devaswom land and he is in possession of a total area of 2,814 sq.ft. are totally false. The petitioner has not encroached upon the land belonging to the Board. He has clearly stated in the Writ petition that, it was the father of the petitioner, who started hotel business in the year 1978. The entire amenities annexed to the hotel, as shown in Ext.R1(B), are in existence from the commencement of the business by his father. There is no encroachment whatsoever upon the land belong to the Board by the petitioner. The amenities annexed to the hotel, which are allegedly termed as the encroachment in the counter affidavit, are essential for the running of a hotel. All the constructions were made by the father of the petitioner, with the consent of the Board and its officials. The officials have been repeatedly visiting the hotel. They have been frequently inspecting the premises. Nobody has raised any objection whatsoever. The Board has not raised any objection regarding the alleged encroachment till the filing of the Writ petition. Thus, the officials of the Board used to visit the building in question and were aware of the existence of the constructions shown in Ext.R1(B). The father of the petitioner died in the year 1986. The Board has not taken any steps against the father of the petitioner, on the ground of the alleged encroachment. The measurements in Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer are not at all correct. The Board has no jurisdiction to issue Ext.R1(D) proceedings dated 23.03.2022 against the petitioner and other tenants of the building, on the basis of Ext.R1(B) sketch submitted by the Assistant Engineer. Ext.R1(B) sketch is clearly illegal. The Assistant Engineer measured the building without giving notice to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.R1(B) sketch cannot be a criteria for issuing proceedings against the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit dated 02.04.2022, wherein it is stated that, the question of the alleged encroachment cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is in possession of excess area, the 1st respondent Board has to institute the civil suit before the appropriate court of law and it is for the civil court to adjudicate the matter. If the petitioner is in possession of excess area, the 1st respondent Board has to institute the civil suit before the appropriate court of law and it is for the civil court to adjudicate the matter. There is a clear inherent lack of jurisdiction of this Court going into the allegations of the respondent, in terms of the counter affidavit. 14. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to accept additional documents. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2022 it is stated that no unlawful construction whatsoever has been carried out by encroaching the property of the 1st respondent Board and that, no encroachment has been made for effecting additional constructions and that, the entire additional constructions effected have completely been approved by the officials of the Board and that, the extensions have been effected with the approval of the officials of the Board, as evident from Exts.P10 and P11 sketches. Ext.P10 sketch regarding ‘proposed extension’ having a plinth area of 45 sq.mt. behind Annapoorna Hotel, bears the signature of the Assistant Engineer, Cochin Devaswom Board, affixed on 27.07.1981, and also the signature of the Devaswom Officer. Ext.P11 sketch, which appears to be part of the building plan approved by Kodungallur Municipality for proposed extension in Ext.P10 sketch, behind Annapoorna Hotel, bears the signature of the Commissioner, Kodungallur Municipality with B.A.No.154/81-82. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that no encroachment has been made for effecting additional constructions. The entire additional constructions made have been approved by the officials of the 1st respondent Board. Thus, the extensions have been effected with the approval of the officials of the Board. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2022 it is stated that the petitioner was able to trace out Exts.P10 and P11 only now. Hence the same could not be produced earlier. 15. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4 and also the additional 5th respondent. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner is contrary to the specific directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench in Dr. N.M. Vijayan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board [judgment dated 01.06.2001 in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases]. The 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board cannot act like an ordinary landlord. N.M. Vijayan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board [judgment dated 01.06.2001 in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases]. The 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board cannot act like an ordinary landlord. The enhancement of rent that could be made by the Board should be at the rate of 15% to 20% in every three years. The enhancement of rent at the rate of 11% for every 11 months demanded by the Board is highly exorbitant, which will certainly reflect in the price structure of food items that are being served in the petitioner’s hotel, which caters the need of poor pilgrims visiting Kodungallur Bhagavathi Temple. The Board and its officials have no jurisdiction to go beyond the directions contained in the judgment dated 01.06.2001. Insofar as Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Ext.R1(C)report dated 11.03.2022 of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner and also Ext.R1(D) order dated 23.02.2022 of the Board are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as stated in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 31.03.2022, all the constructions were made by the father of the petitioner with the consent of the Board and its officials. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Exts.P10 and P11 documents produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2022. Relying on those documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the entire additional constructions effected have completely been approved by the officials of the Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a contention that since the audit report by the Local Fund Audit for the year 2019-20 is pending consideration before this Court in DBAR.No.3 of 2020, which has already been referred to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, the reasons stated in Ext.P4 order for rejecting the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation is legally unsustainable. The learned counsel further contended that the question of the alleged encroachment cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board contended that, as evident from Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled shop room in the Devaswom Building, which is assigned with Door No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality, is having a total area of 64.57 sq.m (695 sq.ft.). 17. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board contended that, as evident from Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled shop room in the Devaswom Building, which is assigned with Door No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality, is having a total area of 64.57 sq.m (695 sq.ft.). Clause (7) of Ext.P1 rental agreement restrain the petitioner from making any material alteration or additional to the said shop room. As per Annexure R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer on 08.03.2022, the total area occupied by the petitioner is 2814 sq.ft. (261 sq.mt.). Ext.P1 rental agreement is one executed between the 1st respondent Board represented by its Secretary on one part and the petitioner on the other part. The petitioner has not come up with even a single scrap of paper to show that consent or permission was granted by the 1st respondent Board for the additional constructions already made. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] and the decision of this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] to contend that, it is the duty of the 1st respondent Board to be faithful to the trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of a mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated. Based on the remarks in the report of the Local Fund Audit on the audit of accounts of the Board for the year 2017-18, the amended bye-law was formulated with effect from 01.08.2019. Agreements were executed in respect of adjacent shop rooms, as evidenced by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) licence deeds dated 09.09.2021 and 004.10.2021 respectively. In the report on the audit of accounts of the Board for the year 2019-20 as well, the Local Fund Audit reported that the rate of rent fixed is too low. The said report is now pending consideration before this Court in DBAR.No.3 of 2020, which is not a bar for the 1st respondent Board demanding revision of rent based on the bye-laws, which came into force with effect from 01.08.2019. 18. The said report is now pending consideration before this Court in DBAR.No.3 of 2020, which is not a bar for the 1st respondent Board demanding revision of rent based on the bye-laws, which came into force with effect from 01.08.2019. 18. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. 19. Section 62A of the Act, inserted by Act 14 of 1990, deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 62A, all immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62B, all unassigned lands belonging to the Devaswom under the sole management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands. 20. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. 20. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub-section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund. 21. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. 22. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 23. Section 86 of the Act provides that alienation of property without sanction of Board void. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 23. Section 86 of the Act provides that alienation of property without sanction of Board void. As per sub-section (1) of Section 86, any exchange, sale, mortgage, pledge, lease or other alienation of the property of an institution executed or made or any debt contracted on its behalf, shall be void unless it is executed or made or contracted with the previous sanction of the Board or with the previous sanction of the Civil Court when in any suit, appeal or other proceedings in relation to the institution a Receiver has been appointed by the civil court for the management of the properties of the institution. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 86, the court shall before granting or refusing such sanction give notice to the Board and hear the objections, if any, of the Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 86, the Board may prefer an appeal to the High Court from the order passed by such court within thirty days of the order and such appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Judges. As per sub-section (3) of Section 86, any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of publication of the order in the Gazette and such appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Judges. As per sub-section (4) of Section 86, every order of the Board under sub-section (1) shall be published in the Gazette. 24. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 25. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 26. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [ 2013 (3) KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 27. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 27. In Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.2254 of 2022] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs.2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs.10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income to the Board is generated from the said building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 28. In Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since, such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/sadyalayams in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate suo motu proceedings in the that matter. 29. In Suneesh K.S. [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with the Kuthaka right for sale of pooja items in Valliamkavu Devi Temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that, the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and also the devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. 30. In the instant case, as per the schedule to Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled premises with shop room No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality is having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.). Clause (7) of Ext.P1 rental agreement restrain the petitioner from using the said shop room other than for commercial purpose and from making any material alteration or additions to the said shop room. During the pendency of this writ petition, the concerned Assistant Engineer of the 1st respondent Board conducted inspection of the building and on measurement it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the Devaswom land and the total area occupied by him is 2,814 sq.ft. (261 sq.mt.). Based on Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer on 08.03.2022, the Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvanchikulam Group reported the said fact to the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.R1(C) report dated 11.03.2022. 31. The stand taken by the petitioner in the reply affidavit dated 31.03.2022 is that, it was the father of the petitioner, who started hotel business in the year 1978. The entire amenities annexed to the hotel, as shown in Ext.R1(B), are in existence from the commencement of the business by his father, who died in the year 1986. There is no encroachment whatsoever upon the land belong to the 1st respondent Board by the petitioner. The amenities annexed to the hotel, which are allegedly termed as the encroachment in the counter affidavit, are essential for the running of a hotel. All the constructions were made by the father of the petitioner, with the consent of the 1st respondent Board and its officials. The officials have been repeatedly visiting the hotel. They have been frequently inspecting the premises. 32. All the constructions were made by the father of the petitioner, with the consent of the 1st respondent Board and its officials. The officials have been repeatedly visiting the hotel. They have been frequently inspecting the premises. 32. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2022 the petitioner has produced Exts.P10 and P11 sketches, in order to contend that no unlawful construction whatsoever has been carried out by encroaching the property of the 1st respondent Board and that, no encroachment whatsoever has been made for effecting additional constructions and that, the entire additional constructions effected have been completely been approved by the officials of the Board and that, the extensions have been effected with the approval of the officials of the 1st respondent Board. 33. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P10 sketch regarding the ‘proposed extension’ having a plinth area of 45 sq.mt. behind Annapoorna Hotel, bears the signature of the Assistant Engineer affixed on 27.07.1981, and also the signature of the Devaswom Officer. Ext.P11 sketch (which appears to be part of the building plan approved by Kodungallur Municipality for proposed extension in Ext.P10 sketch, behind Annapoorna Hotel, bears the signature of the Commissioner, Kodungallur Municipality with B.A.No.154/81-82. In Ext.R1(B) sketch, the Assistant Engineer noted additional construction for an area of 2119 sq.ft. (196 sq.mt.). On the other hand, Exts.P10 and P11 covers additional construction only for an area of 45 sq.mt. (484 sq.ft.). Suppressing the said material fact, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2022, the petitioner has stated that, the entire additional constructions effected have been completely been approved by the officials of the 1st respondent Board. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to wilful suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court. 34. As stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 35. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 35. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 36. In Prestige Lights Limited the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 37. Ext.P1 rental agreement dated 28.09.2007 is one executed between the 1st respondent Board represented by its Secretary on one part and the petitioner on the other part. Clause (7) of Ext.P1 rental agreement restrain the petitioner from using the said shop room other than for commercial purpose and from making any material alteration or additions to the said shop room. As per the schedule to Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled premises with shop room No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality is having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.). As per the schedule to Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled premises with shop room No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality is having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.). Though, it is averred in the reply affidavit dated 31.03.2022, that all the constructions were made by the father of the petitioner with the consent of the Board and its officials, the petitioner has not come up with even a single scrap of paper to show the consent or permission granted by the 1st respondent Board. 38. As already noticed hereinbefore, as per the schedule to Ext.P1 rental agreement, the scheduled premises with shop room No.XIII/431 of Kodungallur Municipality is having a total area of 64.57 sq.mt. (695 sq.ft.). However, in Ext.R1(B) sketch, the Assistant Engineer noted additional construction for an area of 2119 sq.ft. (196 sq.mt.). In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 31.03.2022 it is stated that, the officials of the 1st respondent Board used to visit the building in question and they were aware of the existence of the constructions shown in Ext.R1(B). The officials have been frequently inspecting the premises. Nobody has raised any objection whatsoever. The 1st respondent Board has not raised any objection regarding the alleged encroachment till the filing of the writ petition. It is for the Board to conduct an enquiry by the additional 5th respondent Chief Vigilance Officer on the involvement of any officer in the Maramath wing of the Board regarding the encroachment made on the Devaswom land by putting up the additional constructions noted in Ext.R1(B) and the execution of Ext.P1 and other rental agreements without noticing such additional constructions. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month. Based on the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, the Board shall take necessary action against the erring officers and file an action taken report before this Court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of three months. 39. The challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner is mainly on the ground that, the decision taken in Ext.P4 is in violation of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Dr. N.M. Vijayan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board [Ext.P2 judgment dated 01.06.2001 in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases]. 40. In Dr. N.M. Vijayan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board [Ext.P2 judgment dated 01.06.2001 in O.P.No.15995 of 1999 and connected cases]. 40. In Dr. N.M. Vijayan, the Division Bench was dealing with a batch of cases in which the issue raised was regarding enhancement of rent by the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioners therein were tenants under the Board, conducting various trades in the shops owned by the Board. The enhancement of rent varied from Rs.2/- per sq. ft. The grievance of the tenants was that there has been no improvement effected in the building and hence such a higher rate of rent will have no basis. In the case of Travancore Devaswom Board, this Court has taken a policy that, at the time of renewing the lease the rent has to be enhanced from 15 to 20% and the same method can be adopted in the case of Cochin Devaswom Board. The counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board submitted that there are large number of tenants. The rent was enhanced after calling for a meeting of the tenants and it was implemented only after an inspection was conducted and gathering the necessary data regarding the existing rent. The Division Bench noted that, the Board is a statutory body, which cannot act like an ordinary landlord. No doubt, the Board can also realise reasonable rent. But it should not be exorbitant or rack-rent. After some discussions with the Bar, the Division Bench observed that the best method will be to direct the Cochin Devaswom Board to reconsider the fixation of rent from 01.04.1999. The Board was directed to immediately call for a meeting of the petitioners and other tenants. The rent can be enhanced by percentage rate, after fixing for a particular period. Insofar as Travancore Devaswom Board is concerned, this Court has been renewing the lease, enhancing the rent from 15% to 20%. The Cochin Devaswom Board can discuss with the tenants and fix the percentage rate. The basis for the enhancement should be the rent now fixed for 01.04.1995. After discussions with the tenants, suitable orders will be passed by the Cochin Devaswom Board within a period of three months from the date of that judgment. Till then, the petitioners will pay rent as per the interim order passed by this court. The amount now deposited will be adjusted after the rent is fixed as per our directions. 41. After discussions with the tenants, suitable orders will be passed by the Cochin Devaswom Board within a period of three months from the date of that judgment. Till then, the petitioners will pay rent as per the interim order passed by this court. The amount now deposited will be adjusted after the rent is fixed as per our directions. 41. In N.K. Ratnakumari v. Cochin Devaswom Board and another [Annexure R1(E) judgment dated 07.01.2010 in W.P.(C) No.37715 of 2009] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the petitioner was in occupation of a shop room owned by Cochin Devaswom Board at Vyttila Shopping Complex, after the death of her husband. While so, the period of lease renewed in favour of her husband expired. She applied for renewal of the lease in her name. By Ext.P4 order dated 18.03.2008 the lease was renewed in her favour, however, the rent was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- with stipulation for periodical renewal. She was directed to remit a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards advance and a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the security deposit. She filed Ext.P8 complaint before the Learned Ombudsman, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P9 order. In the said order, it was noticed that, when the lease deed in respect of an adjacent room let out to one T.P. Joseph was renewed, it was done on fresh terms and conditions identical to those in Ext.P4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before this Court by contending that the terms and conditions contained therein are arbitrary and illegal. The Division Bench noticed that, in view of the provisions under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 while letting out any immovable property, the lesser has the right to impose such terms and conditions regarding the price, premium or anything payable in respect of the subject matter of the lease. Before the Division Bench, it was not disputed that, the condition imposed in Ext.P4 is within the ambit of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the Division Bench found that, it could not be held that the respondents had exceeded their right or that the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P4 are in any way arbitrary, illegal or contrary to statutory provisions. Therefore, the Division Bench found that, it could not be held that the respondents had exceeded their right or that the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P4 are in any way arbitrary, illegal or contrary to statutory provisions. The Division Bench noticed that, the writ petition is silent as to the plinth area of the room which was let out, the prevailing rate of rent, the prevailing practice regarding the premium or money payable in respect of the identical building. In the above circumstances, it cannot be concluded that, what was demanded by the respondents for renewing the lease transaction is anything arbitrary, unconscionable, illegal or against the custom or practice followed. Further, as per Ext.P4 order the writ petitioner had volunteered to donate Rs.1,50,000/- towards the Temple Development Fund. Having volunteered to make donation to the Temple Development Fund, while requesting for renewal of the lease, it is not open to the writ petitioner to challenge the same after getting an order of renewal. Though it was stated that the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 order are arbitrary and illegal, it was not mentioned as to why or for what reason those terms and conditions are arbitrary and illegal. Pleadings are very vague and not supported by specific reasoning. Therefore, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as it was devoid of any merit and lacks bona fides. 42. In V. Muraleedharan Nair and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [Ext.R1(A) judgment dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No.32975 of 2015] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the writ petitioners were occupiers of different shop rooms in a shopping complex owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Exhibit P8 series of orders, they have been required to enhance the security deposit and the amounts to be paid for occupation. Before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P7 judgment dated 07.10.2013 in W.P.(C)No.25586 of 2012. The Division Bench noticed that, the said judgment was issued essentially on consent of the Board and the concession made by the Board was only for renewal for a period upto 2012. Therefore, Exhibit P7 judgment is no answer for any demand that the Travancore Devaswom Board may make in relation to occupation charges for buildings or rooms belonging to and under its control. Therefore, Exhibit P7 judgment is no answer for any demand that the Travancore Devaswom Board may make in relation to occupation charges for buildings or rooms belonging to and under its control. The Division noticed that, it cannot also ignore the pristine principle that all Devaswom lands vest in Deities and Travancore Devaswom Board are essentially trustees. Therefore, the action of trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Devaswom Boards would be subserved only if income is generated. 43. In V. Muraleedharan Nair, on the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench found that, taking note of the possibility of the security deposit furnished earlier also being still available with the Travancore Devaswom Board, all that is required to be ordered is that the Board will give credit to any amount lying in deposit towards security deposit while collecting the amounts due under Ext.P8 series towards security deposit. The Division Bench issued such clarification because the writ petitioners submitted that amounts deposited towards security, earlier, are not taken into account. In the result, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that, while giving effect to Ext.P8 series, any amount already lying in deposit with Travancore Devaswom Board towards security deposit in terms of earlier payments towards security shall be accounted for and adjusted against security deposits to be made in terms of Ext.P8 series. 44. ‘Deva’ means God and ‘swom’ means ownership in Sanskrit and the term ‘Devaswom’ denotes the property of God in common parlance. [See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala - 2018 (1) KHC 536 ] 45. In view of the provisions under Section 68, which provides for administration by the Board as a trustee, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. In view of the provisions under Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly and to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. 46. In view of the provisions under Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly and to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. 46. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642], relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated. 47. The major source of revenue of the 1st respondent Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the 1st respondent Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding exhorbitant or rack-rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. Any default committed by the tenant or licensee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms in payment of the monthly rent or licence fee, electricity charges, water charges, statutory dues, etc. has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the building for another purpose or making material alteration or addition to the building. In view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, the 1st respondent Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed. 48. The specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Board is that, the bye-law for letting out rooms under the Board has been amended with effect from 01.08.2019, based on the objections/observations made by the Local Fund Audit in the report on the audit of accounts of the Board for the year 2017-18, wherein it was pointed out that the rent fixed in the shopping complexes of the Board are not realistic and is not based on the land value and commercial importance of those areas. The amended bye-law was formulated with effect from 01.08.2019 and Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) agreements were executed in respect of adjacent the shop rooms. By Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner rejected the request made by the petitioner to renew the rental agreement in respect of the shop room in question, for a period of 3 years with an enhancement of 15% of the existing rent, since as per the amended bye-law every tenant in occupation of the building owned by the 1st respondent Board is liable to pay revised rent at the rate of 11% after every 11 months. 49. As pointed out in the statement, the Local Fund Audit in the report for the year 2019-20 again reported that the rate of rent fixed is very low, as evidenced by Annexure R1(c) relevant extract of that audit report. 49. As pointed out in the statement, the Local Fund Audit in the report for the year 2019-20 again reported that the rate of rent fixed is very low, as evidenced by Annexure R1(c) relevant extract of that audit report. The fact that, the audit report for the year 2019-20 is pending consideration before this Court in DBAR No.3 of 2020, which has already been referred to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, cannot be a ground for the petitioner to seek renewal of the rental agreement in respect of the shop room in question, at a rate below that as per the amended bye-law. At any rate, in such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the building is not lower than the prevailing market rent. 50. Based on Ext.R1(C) report of the Assistant Commissioner, the 1st respondent Board has taken a decision, as evidenced by Ext.R1(D) order dated 23.03.2022, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for violating the terms of the agreement. The Board has also taken a decision to inspect all the rooms given on rent and necessary directions are issued to its Maramath wing, whereby the concerned officer is directed to issue notice to the petitioner for unauthorisedly occupying area in excess of 695 sq.ft. When the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the building is not lower than the prevailing market rent and that, there is no material alterations or additions to the premises in question, the Board cannot be found fault with in issuing Ext.R1(D) proceedings dated 23.03.2022. 51. The petitioner would contend that, the measurements in Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer are not at all correct. The 1st respondent Board has no jurisdiction to issue Ext.R1(D) proceedings dated 23.03.2022 against the petitioner and other tenants of the building in question, on the basis of Ext.R1(B) sketch submitted by the Assistant Engineer. Ext.R1(B) sketch is clearly illegal. The Assistant Engineer measured the building without giving notice to the petitioner. Ext.R1(B) sketch cannot be a criteria for issuing proceedings against the petitioner. Ext.R1(B) sketch is clearly illegal. The Assistant Engineer measured the building without giving notice to the petitioner. Ext.R1(B) sketch cannot be a criteria for issuing proceedings against the petitioner. 52. The petitioner has not come up with even a single scrap of paper to show that the measurements in Ext.R1(B) sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer are not at all correct. In view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, the 1st respondent Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have a legal grievance against the action proposed against him, in Ext.R1(D) proceedings dated 23.03.2022. Therefore, it is for the Board to proceed further, in terms of Ext.R1(D) proceedings. 53. As already noticed hereinbefore, suppressing material facts, the petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2022 that, the entire additional constructions effected have been completely been approved by the officials of the 1st respondent Board. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to wilful suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court. In view of the law laid down in Prestige Lights Limited, conclusion is irresistible that, this writ petition filed with twisted facts and also suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court, which is liable to be dismissed. It is for the 1st respondent Board to conduct an enquiry by the additional 5th respondent Chief Vigilance Officer as to the involvement of any officer in the Maramath wing of the Board, as directed hereinbefore at paragraph 38 and file an action taken report before this Court, within the time limit stipulated hereinbefore. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; subject to the directions contained hereinbefore. No order as to costs.