IMMAM DEEN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has stated that he is practicing Advocate in Nilgiris District. The senior to the petitioner was granted with the permission to run an advocate office in the temple premises. The senior is immobilized and unable to attend the Courts. Therefore, the senior advocate has handed over the advocate office to the writ petitioner to continue the office. Accordingly, the petitioner is running an advocate office in the premises belongs to the temple. Admittedly, the owner of the premises is the temple and the only contention of the writ petitioner is that he is paying rent regularly to the temple. However, the writ petitioner is unable to produce any document to show that he has been granted a valid lease/licence by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) In the absence of any such lease/ licence, the persons, who are in occupation of the temple property have to be treated as encroachers. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the action initiated against the writ petitioner.

(3.) Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short " the Act") reads as under:-