Mandamus will not issue to transfer a disputed lease during pending Section 78 proceedings.

The appellant sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents—the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Courtallam, and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kutralanatha Swamy Thirukovil—to transfer the lease of Shop No. 106, Keela Radha Veethi, Courtallam, into her name on the basis of her representation dated 07 October 2024.

Earlier, in W.P.(MD) No. 14164 of 2024, she had sought a direction to receive arrears of rent relating to the shop. That petition was dismissed on 27 September 2024 because no lease agreement in her favour existed, although liberty was granted to pursue her application for transfer of the lease.

The respondents stated that the appellant was not the primary lessee; the lease and rental receipts continued to stand in the name of one Sudalai.

The appellant claimed that her father, who was Sudalai’s friend, had entered into an arrangement with him for handing over possession of the shop, and that she had subsequently remained in possession.

During the appeal, the respondents informed the Court that proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, were pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Thoothukudi.

Whether the appellant was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the lease of the temple shop into her name despite the absence of a lease agreement or recognition of her as the primary lessee.

Whether the High Court ought to adjudicate the appellant’s claim for recognition of tenancy while proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, were pending before the competent HR & CE authority.

The Court applied the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot ordinarily be issued to compel recognition or transfer of a tenancy where the claimant lacks an established contractual or statutory right, particularly when the official lease and rental receipts remain in another person’s name.

The Court also recognised the statutory scheme under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, under which proceedings concerning unauthorised occupation or related rights in temple property may be determined by the designated HR & CE authority; where such proceedings are pending, the High Court should not pre-empt the competent authority’s determination.

No specific judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The appellant’s claim was based on possession and an alleged private arrangement involving her father and Sudalai, rather than on a lease agreement executed in her own favour.

The Court noted that Sudalai continued to be recorded as the primary lessee and that rental receipts were still issued in his name, meaning that the appellant had not demonstrated an enforceable right to have the lease transferred to her.

Although she claimed to be in possession and sought recognition so that she could pay rent, possession alone did not establish a right to a mandamus for transfer of the lease.

Further, because proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act were pending before the Joint Commissioner, the factual and legal status of the appellant’s occupation remained unresolved.

The Court therefore considered the matter “fluid” and declined to adjudicate the claim or interfere with the statutory proceedings.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and there was no order as to costs.