that ever since the taking over of the management of the Temple by tile Government, he had been paying annual rent as per terms of the lease to the respondent who had accepted him as a tenant; that he had been occupying and enjoying the suit property as before without any let or hinderence either by the respondents or by their predecessor in interest; that on August 1, 1969, his son intimated to him that respondent No. 2 had, by means of notice dated July 31, 1969, called upon him to close the shop on pain of daily fine of Rs. 100/ , as in the opinion of the respondent, he had been using the land in inner bedha of` the Temple for storage and sale of 'Mahaprasad ' which adversely affected the discipline and dignity of the Temple; that on being so informed, he personally approached respondent No. 2 and represented to him that he was the permanent lessee of the suit property and had acquired indefeasible right of storing and selling 'Mahaprasad ' thereon and the respondents could not interfere with that right but his representation fell flat and respondent No. 2 threatened to close his shop forcibly, to impose penalty on him, and to dismiss him from the 'seva '; that after sometime, respondent No. 2 served him within another notice imposing on accumulated penalty of Rs. 4,600/ at the rate of Rs. 100/ per diem and that there being no provision in the Act empowering the respondents to do any of the aforesaid things, there action was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.