6. Before I do that, it is necessary to capture the stated position of the State counsel. Learned State counsel submits that said temple would resort to proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act. To be noted, under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act, there is a legal fiction that a lessee on lease being terminated, would become an encroacher and can be subjected to proceedings under Section 78, but it is not necessary to elaborate any further on these aspects of the matter owing to the limited perimeter of this matter. The more important stated position of the State counsel is that as said temple intends to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act for taking possession of the demised properties/shops, if that be so, will obviously be subject to/dependent on the orders under Section 78 and taking possession can be only under sub-section (4) of Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act. In other words, dehors Section 78 proceedings, there will be no dispossession. This draws the curtains on the anxiety of the writ petitioners. Learned State counsel submits that writ petitioners are in arrears of rent, but this is disputed by the writ petitioners' counsel. This Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on this aspect of the matter as the matter is being relegated qua quasi judicial proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act. Therefore, the following consent order is passed:
