As per case facts, the Plaintiff temple filed suits against the Appellant tenants for recovery of possession and unpaid rent. The tenancy originated with the appellants' father, and after his ... demise, their mother continued it before the appellants and their siblings individually became tenants. Rent was fixed and later enhanced by a Fair-Rent Committee, but the appellants failed to pay the enhanced amount, leading to default. The trial court decreed the suits, ordering eviction, which the First Appellate Court affirmed. The appellants then preferred second appeals, where the central legal question arose: Whether the Respondent temple, governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, could be represented by its Executive Officer whose appointment itself was questioned, and if the Officer had the authority to file the suits. Finally, the High Court determined that while a Supreme Court judgment on Executive Officer appointments in private temples was not directly applicable, the Executive Officer in this case lacked proper authorization from the Board or Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to file the suits. Given this lack of authority, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, allowing the appeals. The appellants were directed to pay all rent arrears with interest, with the temple to provide particulars, allowing further legal action if payment is not made within the stipulated time.