1. Heard the petitioners counsel. These five revision petitions arise out of the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli, dated 24.3.1998 made in I.A.No.57 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.1 of 1994, I.A.No.54 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.2 of 1994, I.A.No.56 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 3 of 1994, I.A.No.55 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.4 of 1994 and I.A.No.58 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.5 of 1994.

2. The five applications mentioned in the above I.A.Nos. were filed by the revision petitioners under O.1, Rule 10 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 2 and 3 in all the above fair rent petitions pending before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli, and the 1st respondent in these five revision petitions Viz., the Executive Officer of Varadarjaperumal Koil, Kalvadangam, Sankari Taluk, Salem District has opposed these impleading petitions by filing a counter. After considering the rival contentions of both parties, the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli dismissed all the impleading petitions filed by the revision petitions, against which orders these five revision petitions are filed by the revision petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the revision petitioners are properly and necessary parties for an effective adjudication of the matter in dispute, and the existing trustee has no right to prosecute the proceedings of the fixation of fair rent, and the revision petitioners must be impleaded to keep a watch over the proceedings for fixation of fair rent in order that the interest of the temple must be protected. The above contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners are untenable for the following reasons.

4. If the revision petitioners wanted to keep a watch over the proceedings in the interest of the temple, they can watch over the proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli and find the result and on that ground the revision petitioners cannot be impleaded as parties to the proceedings for fixation of rent as proper and necessary parties for an effective adjudication of the subject matter in dispute for the reason that mere convenience is not the test to be supplied.

5. The next allegation of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the existing trustee of the 1st respondent-temple has not right to prosecutor the proceedings as mentioned in para 3 of the grounds in these revision petitions. Unless and until the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-temple is removed from the administration and management of the 1st respondent-temple, the Executive Officer has got every right to represent the 1st respondent-temple. Therefore, it is too much to suggest or to say that the existing trustee of the 1st respondent-temple viz., the Executive Officer has no right to prosecute the proceedings for fixation of fair rent, which is a matter between the landlord and the tenant.

6. Then the only contention that survives for consideration is as to whether the revision petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings for an effective adjudication of the matter in dispute, viz., fixation of fair rent in respect of the temple lands. After fixation of rent the tenant becomes liable to pay the rent to the Executive Officer of the temple. The 1st respondent-temple, who is represented by the Executive Officer, will collect the fair rent to determined or the tenant will pay the fair rent so determined to the Executive Officer, who will issue receipts to the tenants and account for the collection of the same or for the payment of the same in the register maintained by the temple for the said purpose. In other words the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-temple is a responsible officer and he is answerable to the H.R. & C.E. Department, and the accounts of the temple will be scrutinised by the audit authorities also. Further it transpires from the pleadings filed by the revision petitioners in their affidavits as well as in the counter filed by the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-temple that there is a dispute with regard to the trusteeship of the said temple in O.S.No.226 of 1992 On the file of District Munsifs Court, Sankari, and the said suit is pending trial. When there is clamour between the revision petitioners and the other third parties for trusteeship, it cannot be said that the revision petitioners are proper and necessary parties for an effective adjudication of the matter in dispute relating to the fixation of fair rent, The revision petitioners must have tangible interest in the administration or the management of the 1st respondent-temple and then only they can be impleaded as parties to the proceedings for fixation of fair rent between the Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-temple and the tenant. I do not find any tangible interest for the revision petitioners herein to be impleaded in the application for fixation of fair rent and in those circumstances I am of the view that these revision petitioners are not proper and necessary parties for an effective adjudication of the matter in dispute viz., fixation of fair rent between the 1st respondent-temple represented by its Executive Officer and the 2nd respondent-tenant herein, and there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli in all these I.As., filed by the revision petitioners in the fair rent applications before him. Hence I hold that all these five revision petitions are devoid of merits, and the same have to be dismissed without costs, and the fair and decretal order passed by the Special Deputy of Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli in I.A.No.57 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.1 of 1994, I.A.No.54 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.2 of 1994, I.A.No.56 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.3 of 1994, I.A.No.55 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.4 of 1995 and I.A.No.58 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.5 of 1994, dated 24.3.1998 have to be confirmed, and consequently I answer this point as against the revision petitioners.

7. In the result, all these five revision petitions viz., C.R.P.Nos.2886 to 2890 of 1998 are dismissed without costs. The fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.57 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.1 of 1994, I.A.No.54 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.2 of 1994, I.A.No. 56 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.3 of 1994, I.A.No.55 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.4 of 1994 and I.A.No.58 of 1997 in F.R.P.No.5 of 1994, dated 24.3.1998 are confirmed.

8. Consequently the stay petitions in C.M.P.Nos.14431 to 14435 of 1998 in C.R.P.Nos.2886 to 2890 of 1998 are also dismissed as unnecessary.