Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 166 (TS)

Srikanth Selections v. Asst Commissioner

2020-01-31

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T.Vinod Kumar, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Telangana Endowment Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No.43 of 2017 dated 24.09.2019 whereby the petitioner was declared as encroacher of the O.A. schedule premises and the respondent is directed to remove the encroachment and handover the vacant physical possession of the schedule premises to the 2nd applicant temple within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. Heard Sri R.K.G. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Endowment for the 1st respondent. 3. It is claimed that the petitioner is in possession of a mulgi (shop) bearing No.612 admeasuring 293.15 sq.ft in the 2nd respondent temple under a lease deed dated 13.09.1994 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month, which was extended from time to time on increase of rent and presently the rent being paid is Rs. 11,722/- per month. As the things stood, it is claimed that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 17.01.2017 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the mulgi bearing No.612. Being aggrieved by the said notice issued, the petitioner has approached the Telangana Endowments Tribunal by filing O.A. numbered as O.A. No.43 of 2017. The said O.A. filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the 2nd respondent temple authority in issuing the notice seeking eviction of the petitioner and not renewing the lease in respect of mulgi No.612 beyond the period of 31.03.2016, the Endowment Tribunal, by its order dated 24.09.2019, held that mere payment of rent regularly would not give any right to the respondent for his continuation in the O.A. schedule premises without there being any licence issued by the competent authority. Further, the Tribunal having regard to the finding arrived at, regarding the petitioner not having licence issued by the competent authority under Rule 4(1) and 2B of the Rules declared the petitioner to be an encroacher in the O.A. schedule premises and directed the petitioner to be evicted from the second applicant temple therein. 4. Further, the Tribunal having regard to the finding arrived at, regarding the petitioner not having licence issued by the competent authority under Rule 4(1) and 2B of the Rules declared the petitioner to be an encroacher in the O.A. schedule premises and directed the petitioner to be evicted from the second applicant temple therein. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been carrying on business from the said mulgi and if the petitioner is evicted therefrom would result in the petitioner being displaced and has offered to pay higher rent and also enter into fresh lease agreement in respect of the schedule premises. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent temple submits that the respondent authorities would put-up the mulgi presently under occupation by the petitioner, for being let-out by inviting bids from the intending tenants through public auction, whereby the temple can fetch higher rent than being offered by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court the details of rent that is being paid by the petitioner and the rents that are being fetched by the other shops in the said temple. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in respect of the premises admeasuring 100 sq.ft. the rent being received is Rs. 13,600/-, while the petitioner who is in possession of the mulgi admeasuring nearly 300 sq.ft. is only paying Rs. 11,722/- which is totally disproportionate to the area in his possession. Learned Counsel submits that if the petitioner is evicted from the said premises, the respondent temple would be able to fetch much higher rent and that the enhanced rent which is being offered by the petitioner is thus not acceptable. 6. Having given due consideration to the submissions made and also considering the fact that the Tribunal in its order having recorded, as a fact, that the petitioner's tenancy being a long standing one and the petitioner having paid rents regularly, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are permitted to let-out the mulgi presently under occupation of the petitioner, by conducting public auction, whereat the petitioner is also permitted to participate. In the event the petitioner's offer being lower than the highest amount offered by any other participant at such auction held, the petitioner shall be given first preference to match the highest bid amount. If the petitioner is willing to offer such highest amount offered by the successful tenderer by confirming his willingness in writing immediately, the authorities shall give preference to the petitioner at such highest amount by entering into fresh lease agreement for a period of tenancy mentioned in the bid. In the event, the petitioner does not agree to pay the highest amount offered by any other participant and fails to issue confirmation of acceptance, the petitioner shall vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the mulgi bearing No.612, to the authorities immediately, but not later than seven days from the date of finalisation of auction. The respondent authorities while issuing notice of public auction relating to the let-out of the mulgi on tenancy basis shall also indicate the date from which the possession of the shop would be given, which should not less than fifteen days from the date of finalisation of auction, to enable the petitioner to remove his belongings from the premises, in the event the petitioner failing to match the highest offer, and hand over the possession to the 2nd respondent. 7. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.