Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 825 (AP)

Vannemreddy Mohana Krishna v. Camp Bell Choultry

2020-12-16

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of Andhra Pradesh Endowment Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani in O.A. No. 266 of 2015, dated 09.05.2018. The appellant was directed to be evicted from the property in his occupation holding that he is an encroacher in terms of Section 84(2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short Act 30/1987). 2. The property concerned to this case is Shop No. 4, which is at building bearing D. No. 1-157, Near Pedda Vanthena, P.P. Road, Undi Village/Mandal, West Godavari District. It shall herein after be referred to as 'the disputed shop'. 3. This shop admittedly belongs to the 1st respondent. This shop is under control and supervision of an Executive Officer, working under the control of the 2nd respondent. 4. The auction relating to lease hold rights was conducted in respect of the disputed shop on 29.10.2007. The appellant became the successful bidder for the lease period from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2010 and that he accepted all the terms and conditions of lease, including to pay an amount of Rs. 900/- towards rent on or before 5th of every succeeding month. After expiry of the lease period, the appellant claimed that he gave a representation to the authorities concerned to extend lease for another period of three years on enhanced rent of 35% above the existing rent, offering to pay Rs. 1215/- per month. He continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property likewise, paying monthly rent at Rs. 1215/-. However the 1st respondent declared the appellant an encroacher and according to the appellant, without considering his representation began to demand him to vacate the premises and also got issued a notice to him on 02.12.2013. 5. The appellant denied the case of the respondents before the Tribunal. He specifically questioned the title of the 1st respondent and contended that the first respondent has no right to seek his eviction from the disputed shop. Denying that he has been a defaulter to pay the lease amounts, he asserted that he has been very regular in paying the rents or lease amounts and that the 1st respondent is issuing the receipts thereon without any protest. Denying that he has been a defaulter to pay the lease amounts, he asserted that he has been very regular in paying the rents or lease amounts and that the 1st respondent is issuing the receipts thereon without any protest. He further contended that after receiving the notice from the 1st respondent, he approached the concerned authorities and gave a reply in writing. Thus, questioning the bonafides in the action of the first respondent in filing an application for his eviction before the Tribunal, he sought to dismiss the same. 6. The Endowment Tribunal, basing on the pleadings and other material settled the following issues for trial. "1. Whether the respondent is an encroacher U/S. 83 of Act 30/1987, if so liable to be evicted? 2. To what relief?" 7. In the course of trial, on behalf of the 1st respondent its Executing Officer was examined as P.W.1. No documents were exhibited on its behalf. Even the appellant did not choose to enter the box nor had let-in evidence oral or documentary. 8. Basing on the material, the Tribunal observed that the appellant is an encroacher in terms of Section 83 of Act 30/1987 and is liable to vacate. Six months time was granted to the appellant subject to paying damages at different rates for different years. 9. It is against this order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant. 10. Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal observed that the request of the appellant could be considered by the authorities for continuation of occupation of the shop in dispute, subject to payment of enhanced rent and in such an event, an opportunity be given to him to continue to be in possession of this property. 11. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for 1st respondent, opposing this contention of the appellant, mainly brought to the notice of this Court that the premises in question was already taken possession of, pursuant to the order and decree in O.A. No. 266 of 2015 through process of the Court on 25.11.2020 and therefore, the purpose of filing this appeal has become infructuous. While declining to accept the request of learned counsel for the appellant for consideration of his continuance in the property, the learned Standing Counsel also relied on Rule 3 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments immovable properties and other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licences Rules 2003, which prescribes particular procedure for confirmation of Lease or Licence rights. 12. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that there cannot be any extension of lease at the request of the appellant without following due procedure. Pointing out that the appellant was encroacher, who continued to be in occupation even though the lease stood determined by 31.10.2010 and referring to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in impugned order, finally it is stated that there is no merit in this appeal. 13. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is still in possession of this shop, where he is selling milk. It is also contended that machines installed in the premise for this purpose are not removed. At the same time, request is made to permit the appellant to participate in the auction, if any, with reference to the property giving a fair opportunity. 14. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel in response stated that there is a huge arrears of Rs. 6.94 lakhs payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent and unless, he clears all the arrears in terms of the rules applicable, he cannot participate in ensuing auction. 15. In this background, now the point emerges for determination is "whether the findings of the Tribunal against the appellant are proper and if an opportunity be given to the appellant to continue to occupy this property? 16. There is no dispute that the appellant was in occupation of the disputed property. He was a tenant under a valid lease, which right was acquired by virtue of participation in public auction for the year 2007, initially for a period of three years from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2010 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. Thereafter, inspite of determination of the lease by efflux of time on 31.10.2010, the appellant continued to be in occupation of this shop room. It is the contention of the appellant that for this purpose he had agreed to pay Rs. 1250/- per month as rent enhancing the initial rent by 35%. 900/-. Thereafter, inspite of determination of the lease by efflux of time on 31.10.2010, the appellant continued to be in occupation of this shop room. It is the contention of the appellant that for this purpose he had agreed to pay Rs. 1250/- per month as rent enhancing the initial rent by 35%. This fact itself makes out that the appellant was in occupation of the property unauthorizedly without any valid permission or authority from the competent authority. 17. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal also observed that the appellant continued to be in possession of this property even after expiry of lease period and that he was so allowed for a period of more than six years. This passive response or rather inaction of the first respondent to get the appellant evicted after determination of the lease, had given rise to such situation of holding over this property beyond the lease period and for more than six years by the appellant, on payment of enhanced rent. Though the appellant claims that rent has been paid by him, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel, it cannot be a reason for continuing his occupation. Nevertheless, the admitted situation with reference to unauthorised occupation of this premises by the appellant clearly falls within the purview of Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987. The reason is that the appellant was in occupation of this shop room without approval of the competent authority's sanction of lease or license, after expiry of initial lease period. 18. Thus, the Tribunal rightly observed holding and declaring the appellant as an encroacher. 19. There are observations in the impugned order which the appellant is making use of, to consider his request for continuation of his occupation of this shop room and liberty was given to the appellant to approach the competent authority for the purpose. 20. Any gratuitous observation of the Tribunal cannot clothe an individual, a right or vested interest. When the law and Rules prescribe a particular procedure to follow, neither Court nor the Tribunal can make inroads by encroaching upon the field of operation of such law or Rules. When this is the basic premise on which a matter of this nature needs to be considered, a gratuitous observation of the Tribunal cannot be a source of strength to the appellant. 21. When this is the basic premise on which a matter of this nature needs to be considered, a gratuitous observation of the Tribunal cannot be a source of strength to the appellant. 21. It is manifested that the appellant remained an encroacher and he is liable to evicted. The request on behalf of the appellant to permit him to participate in ensuing auction needs no consideration, having regard to scope of this appeal. 22. Finding that there are no reasons to interfere with the order under appeal, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim order if any stands vacated.