ORDER
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
1. The ninth defendant in O.S. No. 8749 of 1983 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal dated 21.11.2003 and made in I.A. No. 19593 of 2003 in O.S. No. 8749 of 1983 on the file of the Court of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the suit.
2. The respondent temple filed the suit in O.S. No. 8749 of 1983 on the file of the City Civil Court at Chennai against the defendants claiming that one Misrilal Jain became the tenant of the suit property under the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8 are his legal representatives. According to the plaintiff, even when Misrilal Jain was the tenant, he put up superstructure and sublet the entire portion to the ninth defendant and as such, the ninth defendant has become sub-tenant under Misrilal Jain. Since the tenant Misrilal Jain cannot claim any right under Section 9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act, the plaintiff filed the suit for delivery of vacant possession in which superstructure was put up by the ninth defendant.
3. It appears that though the defendants 1 to 8 filed petition under Section 9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act, it was dismissed after contest and they have not filed written statement in the suit. However, the ninth defendant/revision petitioner, who is the sub-tenant, alone has filed written statement in the suit.
4. The ninth defendant/revision petitioner filed petition in I.A. No. 19593 of 2003, subject matter of the revision petition, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit as infructuous claiming that he is in occupation of the suit property as a tenant directly under the plaintiff temple.
5. The trial Court, considering the documents produced on the side of the ninth defendant/revision petitioner, found that the question as to whether the temple can enter into a lease with the sub-tenant without legally getting possession of the suit property from the tenant is to be considered at the time of trial and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the order dated 09.4.1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the revision petitioner is in occupation of the suit property and as such, he has become the tenant of the suit property under the temple. It is also stated that Lease Deed was executed on 12.4.1984 by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent temple for a period of three years and subsequent Lease Deeds have also been executed. Learned counsel further submitted that inasmuch as the revision petitioner has become tenant of the temple in view of the registered lease Deed entered into between the revision petitioner and the respondent temple, nothing survives in the suit and the suit has become infructuous.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent temple/plaintiff vehemently argued that the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has alone got the power to declare the revision petitioner as tenant of the suit property and, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner recognising the revision petitioner as tenant of the suit property is not proper and as such, the change of tenancy from Misrilal Jain to the revision petition is improper. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that inasmuch as Misrilal Jain has not surrendered possession and delivery of the suit property has also not been taken by the respondent temple, the revision petitioner cannot become tenant of the suit property and these factors have to be gone into only at the time of trial by letting in evidence. In this regard, learned counsel further pointed out that as per Section 43 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department alone is competent to withdraw the suit and the Executive Officer has no power to withdraw the suit without the permission of the Commissioner.
9. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/temple, the trial Court, considering all these aspects, held that the revision petitioner/ninth defendant cannot be taken as a tenant during the pendency of the suit and the questions as to whether the revision petitioner has become tenant by executing lease deed after the possession of the suit property was surrendered by Misrilal Jain and as to whether the respondent temple can enter into a lease with the sub-tenant without legally getting possession of the suit property from the tenant are to be decided only at the time of trial of the suit by letting in evidence. In that view, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and it is to be confirmed.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 21.11.2003 passed in I.A. No. 19593 of 2003 in O.S. No. 8749 of 1983 on the file of the Court of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 20794 of 2003 is closed. Inasmuch as the suit was filed in the year 1983, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same by September, 2005.