ORDER : All these writ petitions are related to one Endowment Institution and the facts and reliefs sought are similar. They are all being disposed of by way of this common order. W.P.Nos.17006 and 7111 of 2016: 2. The facts relating to these two writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in these two writ petitions is in possession of shop bearing Dr.No.13/635 of Y.V.Street, Kadapa, Kadapa District, as the lessee of Sri Yadalla Nagamma Charities (hereinafter referred to as the “Endowment Institution”), O.A.No.154 of 2009 was filed, under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool for evicting the petitioner from said shop. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, renumbered as O.A.No.1150 of 2010, and allowed on 13.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.26879 of 2012. During the pendency of this writ, the lease of the petitioner was extended till 31.12.2012 by way of the proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments, dated 26.07.2012 bearing D.Dis.No.B5/26011/2012. As the lease had been extended till 31.12.2012, W.P.No.26879 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording this fact. 3. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Endowments by the proceedings, dated 15.05.2013, in Memo in Rc.No.B5/51240/2012 extended the lease upto 31.12.2015. The petitioner, in the month of November, 2015, submitted an application to the Commissioner, Endowments for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019. While this representation was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution issued a notice, dated 12.02.2016, informing the petitioner that the lease granted to the petitioner had expired and called upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the shop. In reply to this notice, the petitioner requested the Executive Officer to consider the renewal of the lease. Thereupon, the Executive Officer had given a reply to the petitioner stating that the building had become old and dilapidated and needed to be demolished. Thereupon, W.P.No.7111 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quite notice, dated 12.02.2016 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 4. Thereupon, W.P.No.7111 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quite notice, dated 12.02.2016 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 4. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of an interim direction had directed the Endowment Institution to consider the representation of the petitioner and not to vacate the petitioner till such representation was considered. While this writ petition was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution had passed an order, dated 11.04.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner given to the Commissioner, Endowments. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17006 of 2016 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution could not have rejected a representation made to the Commissioner, Endowments. W.P.Nos.7109 of 2016 and 17047 of 2016:- 6. The facts relating to these two writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in these two writ petitions is in possession of shop bearing Dr.No.13/636 of Y.V.Street, kadapa, Kadapa District. As the lessee of Sri Yadalla Nagamma Charities (hereinafter referred to as the “Endowment Institution”), O.A.No.151 of 2009 was filed, under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool for evicting the petitioner from said shop. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, renumbered as O.A.No.1147 of 2010 and allowed on 13.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.26826 of 2012. During the pendency of this writ, the lease of the petitioner was extended till 31.12.2012 by way of the proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments, dated 26.07.2012 bearing D.Dis.No.B5/26011/2012. As the lease had been extended till 31.12.2012, W.P.No.26826 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording this fact. 7. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Endowments by the proceedings, dated 15.05.2013, in Memo in Rc.No.B5/51240/2012 extended the lease upto 31.12.2015. The petitioner, in the month of November, 2015, submitted an application to the Commissioner, Endowments for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019. As the lease had been extended till 31.12.2012, W.P.No.26826 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording this fact. 7. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Endowments by the proceedings, dated 15.05.2013, in Memo in Rc.No.B5/51240/2012 extended the lease upto 31.12.2015. The petitioner, in the month of November, 2015, submitted an application to the Commissioner, Endowments for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019. While this representation was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution issued a notice, dated 12.02.2016, informing the petitioner that the lease granted to the petitioner had expired and called upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the shop. In reply to this notice, the petitioner requested the Executive Officer to consider the renewal of the lease. The Executive Officer had given a reply to the petitioner stating that the building had become old and dilapidated and needed to be demolished. Thereupon, W.P.No.7109 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quite notice, dated 12.02.2016 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 8. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of an interim direction had directed the Endowment Institution to consider the representation of the petitioner and not to vacate the petitioner till such representation was considered. While this writ petition was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution had passed an order, dated 11.04.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner given to the Commissioner, Endowments. 9. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17047 of 2016 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution could not have rejected a representation made to the Commissioner, Endowments. W.P.Nos.7160 of 2016 and 17041 of 2016:- 10. The facts relating to these two writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in these two writ petitions is in possession of shop bearing Dr.No.13/638 of Y.V.Street, kadapa, Kadapa District. As the lessee of Sri Yadalla Nagamma Charities (hereinafter referred to as the “Endowment Institution”), O.A.No.152 of 2009 was filed, under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool for evicting the petitioner from said shop. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, renumbered as O.A.No.1148 of 2010 and was allowed on 13.07.2012. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, renumbered as O.A.No.1148 of 2010 and was allowed on 13.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.26945 of 2012. During the pendency of this writ, the lease of the petitioner was extended till 31.12.2012 by way of the proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments, dated 26.07.2012 bearing D.Dis.No.B5/26011/2012. As the lease had been extended till 31.12.2012, W.P.No.26945 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording this fact. 11. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Endowments by the proceedings, dated 15.05.2013, in Memo in Rc.No.B5/51240/2012 extended the lease upto 31.12.2015. The petitioner, in the month of November, 2015, submitted an application to the Commissioner, Endowments for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019. The Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution issued a notice, dated 22.09.2015, informing the petitioner that the lease granted to the petitioner had expired and called upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the shop. In reply to this notice, the petitioner requested the Executive Officer to consider the renewal of the lease. Thereupon, the Executive Officer had given a reply to the petitioner stating that the building had become old and dilapidated and needed to be demolished. Thereupon, W.P.No.7160 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quit notice, dated 22.09.2015 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 12. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of an interim direction had directed the Endowment Institution to consider the representation of the petitioner and not to vacate the petitioner till such representation was considered. While this writ petition was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution had passed an order, dated 11.04.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner given to the Commissioner, Endowments. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17041 of 2016 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution could not have rejected a representation made by the Commissioner, Endowments. W.P.Nos.7112 of 2016 and 17087 of 2016:- 14. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17041 of 2016 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution could not have rejected a representation made by the Commissioner, Endowments. W.P.Nos.7112 of 2016 and 17087 of 2016:- 14. The facts relating to these two writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in these two writ petitions is in possession of shop bearing Dr.No.13/637(a) of Y.V.Street, kadapa, Kadapa District. As the lessee of Sri Yadalla Nagamma Charities (hereinafter referred to as the “Endowment Institution”), O.A.No.153 of 2009 was filed, under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool for evicting the petitioner from said shop. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, renumbered as O.A.No.1149 of 2010 and allowed on 13.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.26842 of 2012. During the pendency of this writ, the lease of the petitioner was extended till 31.12.2012 by way of the proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments, dated 26.07.2012 bearing D.Dis.No.B5/26011/2012. As the lease had been extended till 31.12.2012, W.P.No.26842 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording this fact. 15. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Endowments by the proceedings, dated 15.05.2013, in Memo in Rc.No.B5/51240/2012 extended the lease upto 31.12.2015. The petitioner, in the month of November, 2015, submitted an application to the Commissioner, Endowments for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019. The Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution issued a notice, dated 22.09.2015, informing the petitioner that the lease granted to the petitioner had expired and called upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the shop. In reply to this notice, the petitioner requested the Executive Officer to consider the renewal of the lease. Thereupon, the Executive Officer had given a reply to the petitioner stating that the building had become old and dilapidated and needed to be demolished. Thereupon, W.P.No.7112 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quite notice, dated 22.09.2015 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 16. Thereupon, W.P.No.7112 of 2016 is filed seeking the impugned quite notice, dated 22.09.2015 issued by the Executive Officer of the Endowments to be set aside and to give a further direction to the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in the said shop. 16. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of an interim direction had directed the Endowment Institution to consider the representation of the petitioner and not to vacate the petitioner till such representation was considered. While this writ petition was pending, the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution had passed an order, dated 11.04.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner given to the Commissioner, Endowments. 17. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17087 of 2016 on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution could not have rejected a representation made by the Commissioner, Endowments. 18. The case of the petitioners in all the above writ petitions is that they are entitled for extension of lease as they have been in continuous possession of the said shops for quite some time and cannot be evicted. It is their further case that the contention of the Execution Officer of the Endowment Institution is that the building is in a dilapidated condition is incorrect as the petitioners had obtained a Structural Soundness Certificate of the building, dated 12.03.2016 which goes to show that the building is structurally sound and as such the building does not require to be demolished nor the petitioners evicted from the premises. 19. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for some of the petitioners and Sri Thipparthi Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Endowment Institution and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 20. The petitioners, except stating that they have a right to remain in possession of the shops as lessees of the Endowment Institution, have not shown any provision of law or document, which grants them such a right. The Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.866 Revenue (Endowments Act) Department, dated 08.08.2003, had issued The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than agricultural land) leases and licenses Rules, 2003, regulating the grants of leases of non-agricultural properties of Endowment Institution. The Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.866 Revenue (Endowments Act) Department, dated 08.08.2003, had issued The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than agricultural land) leases and licenses Rules, 2003, regulating the grants of leases of non-agricultural properties of Endowment Institution. These rules provide that all leases or licenses of non-agricultural properties shall be made by way of tender/public auction on annual advance rent basis. In view of these rules, a lessee in possession of non-agricultural endowment properties cannot claim any vested right to continue as lessee, even after the expiry of the lease. 21. In the present case, the petitioners, even according to their own pleadings have been in possession of the shops belonging to the Endowment Institution and are continuing as lessees by way of enhancement of lease, every time the lease is renewed. The past conduct of the Respondents in extending the leases of the petitioners is not in accordance with the rules and such past conduct does not give any right to the petitioners to claim further extension or continuation of leases given earlier. The petitioners would not be entitled to continue as lessees without going through the process of a public auction of the lease hold rights to these shops. 22. Another fact that needs to be noticed in the present cases is that the petitioners have sought extension of leases upto 2019. The relief sought by the petitioners has also become infructuous. 23. The contention of the petitioners that the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution, could not have rejected representations made by the petitioners to the Commissioner of Endowments cannot be disputed. However, it is clear that this confusion arose on account of the directions of this Court in the writ petitions filed for setting aside the quit notices. In those writ petitions, this Court had directed the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution to consider the representations of the petitioners. The said executive officer, under the mistaken impression that he was directed to consider the representations made to the Commissioner Endowments, had rejected the representation made by the petitioners before the Commissioner Endowments. These orders are set aside. 24. Having set aside the said orders of rejection given by the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution, the question that remains is whether anything further would remain for consideration of the Commissioner Endowments. 25. These orders are set aside. 24. Having set aside the said orders of rejection given by the Executive Officer of the Endowment Institution, the question that remains is whether anything further would remain for consideration of the Commissioner Endowments. 25. As noticed above, the representations themselves were for renewal of the lease upto 31.12.2019 which has already expired. Nothing further survives for consideration by the Commissioner Endowments. Apart from this, there is no authority and power vested in the Commissioner, in the rules for grant of extension of the existing licenses or leases. 26. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in any of these Writ Petition Nos.7109, 7111, 7112, 7160, 17006, 17041, 17047 and 17087 OF 2016 and they are, accordingly, disposed of. W.P.Nos.18384 of 2012 and 23392 of 2021: 27. The facts relating to these two writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in these two writ petitions is seeking relief against the 2 nd respondent/Endowment Institution in both the writ petitions. Hence, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. The petitioner is lessee of the 2nd respondent, in W.P.No.18384 of 2012, in relation to a shop bearing Dr.No.13/637 of Y.V.Street, kadapa, Kadapa District. O.A.No.155 of 2009 was filed, under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool for evicting the petitioner from said shop. This application, upon the constitution of the Endowment Tribunal, was transferred to the Endowment Tribunal, and was renumbered as O.A.No.1151 of 2010. This application was allowed on 24.03.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present W.P.No.18384 of 2012. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of an interim direction, dated 21.06.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.23539 of 2012 had granted interim stay of execution of the impugned order of the Tribunal until further orders. 28. While this writ petition was pending, the respondents sought to vacate the petitioner from the said shop. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.23392 of 2021 on the ground that the respondents could not dispossess the petitioner during the pendency of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, dated 21.06.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.23539 of 2012 in W.P.No.18384 of 2012. 29. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 30. 29. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. 30. The contention of the petitioner is that there was a dispute between the members of the founder family of the 2nd respondent and in view of the said dispute which was the subject matter of O.A.No.13 of 1985 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool, the attempt of the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent in trying to vacate the petitioner is invalid inasmuch as the petitioner continued to pay rents to the person in management of the 2nd respondent. 31. All these aspects were considered by the Endowment Tribunal which took into account the fact that the writ petitioner despite being granted opportunities never came into witness box or adduced evidence in relation to the allegations made by the writ petitioner. It was also held that the writ petitioner is at best entitled to continue as a tenant only upto 31.03.2016, and that the occupation of the shop by the writ petitioner was only in the nature of an unauthorized occupation. The Endowment Tribunal also took into account the fact that the application for eviction had been filed not only by the Endowment Institution but also by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Kadapa, who is a competent person under Section 83 of the Endowments Act. In these circumstances, there are no merits in the contention raised by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18384 of 2012 and as such, the said writ petition is dismissed. 32. As W.P.No.18384 of 2012 is being dismissed by this order, the interlocutory orders given in these writ petitions would also stand vacated and consequently, W.P.No.23392 of 2021, which has been filed on the strength of the interlocutory orders in W.P.No.18384 of 2012 would also have to fail. 33. Accordingly, the W.P.Nos.18384 of 2012 and 23392 of 2021 are dismissed with costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.