T.RAJA,J. - (1.)This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 in G.O. No. 30, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, passed by the first respondent, rejecting his revision petition by confirming the order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, second respondent herein.
(2.)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the property comprised in S. No. 295/3, situated at No. 38, Amman Koil Street, Padi, Chennai having an extent of 1763 sq.ft. was originally alloted to one Mr. Balasubramaniyam by the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukkoil, Guruthalam Office, Padi on 01.02.1989. The said Balasubramaniyam, in-turn, sold one portion of the land measuring about 729 sq.ft. at No. 1/38, Amman Koil Street, padi to one Mr. Sampath on 25.03.1993. The said Sampath conveyed the superstructure having an extent of 729 sq.ft. to one Marimuthu on 07.02.2000. After three years of enjoyment and occupation, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the said Marimuthu and subsequently purchased the superstructure of the property measuring 729 sq.ft on 20.08.2003, which has not been registered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 to 4 seeking them to accept him as a tenant in respect of the aforementioned property on the basis of the representation given on 21.12.2012. Finding no response, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 29854 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 21.12.2012. This Court considering the limited prayer and also without going into the merits of the matter, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to accept him as a tenant in respect of the superstructure of the property. As against which, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent and the first respondent also rejected his claim. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court. Since the petitioner is a lawful owner of the superstructure purchased from his vendor Marimuthu, the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed.
(3.)Opposing the above prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition and submits that when the fourth respondent has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 346 of 2014 before the District Munsif, Ambattur, against the original allottee on the ground that he has become a chronic defaulter, during the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner cannot make any payment whatsoever to the 4th respondent merely on the ground that the petitioner has entered into an agreement dated 20.08.2003, which is not even a registered one and therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for the respondents 1 and 2 to accept him as tenant in respect of the aforementioned property.