JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. The petitioners challenge the order Annexure-3 by which the Commissioner of Endowments confirmed the order passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in an application filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. By that application O.A. No. 3 of 2001. the Interim Managing Trustee representing the deity Shri Laxminarayan Mahaprabhu. sought eviction of the petitioners, who claim to be permanent tenants in respect of the rooms occupied by them. According to the Interim Managing Trustee, the petitioner, herein were not in legal occupation and that they were not paying any rent even though they claim to be tenants and that the application was liable to be allowed and the petitioners herein evicted. The petitioners herein resisted that application contending inter alia that the leases were granted to them in the year 1962 by the then Trustee, the tenancies in their favour were permanent tenancies, that though they tendered the rent, the Interim Managing Trustee had refused to receive the same, that they were not in default and that the application under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act was not maintainable.
2. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments noticed that the claim was permanent tenancy as granted by the prior hereditary Trustee. He found that the grant of leases of that nature even if the case is true, without sanction under Section 19 of the Act, made the leases void, that the occupation of the petitioner herein was unauthorised and they could be evicted by way of a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments also found that there has been no proper tendering of rent by the petitioners herein. Thus the Additional Assistant Commissioner allowed the application. In revision, the revisional authority agreed with the conclusion of the original authority and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. It is that order that is challenged before us in this writ petition.
3. We heard petitioner No. 4 on behalf of the petitioners, the Interim Managing Trustee on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and the Additional Assistant Commissioner, all in person. The case was taken up for final hearing and disposal at the request of the petitioners.
4. It is clear from the pleadings of the petitioners, that according to them, they were put in possession by the then hereditary Trustee as permanent tenants. In fact, their case indicates that they were permitted to put up constructions at their cost. Of course, there is no material to support that claim. That aspect was also not argued before us. The only case urged was that they were tenants of the rooms as let in by the then hereditary Trustee and that the leases were permanent leases. If the leases that are claimed by the petitioners herein are permanent leases, they are clearly hit by Section 19 of the Act which was introduced in the year 1954. For, the leases that were allegedly granted were granted in the year 1962, without obtaining any sanction from the Commissioner on the ground that the grant of such leases was necessary or beneficial to the institution. Therefore, even if the case of the petitioners were to be accepted, the leases in their favour were void for non compliance of Section 19 of the Act. Going by the explanation to Section 68 (1) of the Act, it is clear that a person claiming on the basis of a transaction contrary to Section 19(1) of the Act, cannot be regarded as a person claiming in good faith within the meaning of that Section. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act. entitling the concerned authority, the Additional Assistant Commissioner, to put the Trustee in possession, is clearly applicable in the case on hand. Therefore, the argument that the Additional Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to act under Section 68 of the Act has no force. We find that the power was rigktly exeqcised by the Additional “Assistaot Commissioner, “especianly since the transactions as pleaded by the petjtioners” herein uere void and were incapable of aonferrilg any rkght on uhem.
5. It was contended on behalf of the petktioners that thg petitimners had made an offer what the{ would pay Rs. 1000.- pdr mmnth#as nontily pent”as against Ss. 250// per momth, the{ wese bmund!to ray hn tfrms”of vhe lrighnal transaction and the{ ma{ be!permitted to continue in occupation on the basis of that undertaking. It is contended that even before the Assistant Commissioner, this offer was made but that authority had not considered the claim. In the nature of the plea raised by the petitioners that they had a permanent tenancy and the plea of ownership of the building of course now abandoned that even amounts to a denial of the title, we are of the view that the offer made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. We think that it is only necessary to make it clear that if and when the Interim Managing Trustee, with the approval of the Commissioner seeks to grant a lease or licence, the petitioners would also be at liberty to make their offers along with others and the fact that they are now being evicted, will not stand in the way.
6. On going through the revisional order sought to be quashed by the petitioners, we find that the said order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. All relevant aspects have been considered by the revisional authority and nothing irrelevant has been relied on. There is also no failure to consider any relevant material. On going through the relevant materials, we are also in agreement with the finding rendered by the revisional authority. In this situation, we are satisfied that no interference is warranted.
7. We. therefore confirm the order of the revisional authority and dismiss this writ petition. The Interim Managing Trustee, after evicting the petitioners, if decides go grant leases of the rooms or licence the rooms, should the permission of the Commissioner of Endowments, whatever be the period for which the lease is proposed to be granted and the grant of leases will be only by inviting applications from the public at large and the leases or licences will be granted only after ensuring that it is in the best interest of the deity. Even if the grant of lease is decided upon by the Interim Managing Trustee, we make it clear that the same can be actually granted only after the approval of the Commissioner is obtained by the Interim Managing Trustee. We think that these safe-guards are necessary to safe-guard the interests of the deity.