a) The first point urged is dovetailed with the second point ie., notice regarding lease rent fixation not being served on writ petitioner and violation of NJP are dovetailed. Therefore, I will deal with both the points together. Both these points will arise only in the case of a land lessee under said temple when the lease is subsisting. In this case, as already alluded to supra when steps were taken to evict the writ petitioner, writ petitioner came to this Court, this Court said the writ petitioner shall not be evicted dehors the due process of law. Thereafter, the tenancy was terminated in and by a legal notice dated 15.10.2012 saying that Section 78 proceedings were to be initiated. On termination of tenancy, by legal fiction ie., by operation of clause (b) of explanation to Section 78 of the TN HR & CE Act, the land lessee also becomes an encroacher. In the instant case, a careful perusal of the writ affidavit in both the captioned writ petitions also makes it clear that the writ petitioner more particularly in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of senior W.P. claims that he is the owner of the superstructure. If this be the case, it is only appropriate that the contemplated Section 78 proceedings go on. b) Be that as it may, as the lease has been terminated, the lease rent fixation itself is erroneous and therefore, both these points ie., writ petitioner not being put on notice and the NJP violation do not survive. To be noted, if on the facts and circumstances on another case, if the lease had been subsisting or if the writ petitioner does not claim ownership of the superstructure that too not like the case on hand where writ petitioner being a purchaser of the superstructure from original tenant under the said temple (wherein there is nothing to show that said temple granted permission to original lessee to sell the superstructure) the scenario may have been different and Angala Parameswari ratio of this Court ie., ratio in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2009-3L.W.728 would operate.
