belonging to the third respondent, from 1977 and the petitioner is continuously paying monthly rent without any default. On 14.08.2009, the third respondent sent a communication to the petitioner, enhancing the rent from 01.11.2001 with retrospective effect. Upon which, the petitioner submitted a representation on 23.11.2010 and also made a request to revise the rent at reasonable rates. But, the third respondent on 21.03.2012 issued a legal notice, directing him to pay sum of Rs.16,92,730/- towards arrears of rent, for which, the petitioner has also sent a reply, expressing his readiness and willingness to accept any prospective revision in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. But, all of a sudden, the second respondent, initiated proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and issued a notice dated 20.11.2012, without terminating the tenancy. The petitioner in his reply, dated 22.04.2013, seeking details of the revision. Thereafter, the second respondent issued notice directing the petitioner to appear before him and accordingly, the Deputy Manager of the petitioner Corporation appeared. However, the second respondent passed an order dated 10.09.2013, directing him to vacate the demised premises within a period of 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P(MD) No.16726 of 2013 and the same was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent. But, the first respondent without appreciating the factual backgrounds of the matter, held that there is no lease existing between the petitioner and the temple and also directed the second respondent to implement the order dated 10.09.2013. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
