JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is plaintiff/Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) in O.S. No. 202 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The respondent herein is defendant in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: The vacant site measuring 6’ X 6’ situated in 2nd New Choultry, Tirupati, belonged to the plaintiff/TTD. The defendant was granted license to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. After expiry of license period, the license was not renewed. As per rules, the authorities called for tenders for the said premises to run STD booth for a period of one year by means of publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies. Tenders were opened in the presence of tenderers on 09-02-2001 at 03.15 p.m. One K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was the highest bidder, he having offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards license fee for the plaint schedule premises. After expiry of license period, defendant has no right to run the STD booth in the suit premises. The status of defendant is that of an encroacher as per explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 83 read with Section 118 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. He is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises from 15-12-2000 onwards. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he is an unemployee and a poor person and he has to maintain his family consisting of old aged mother and two children. So, he applied to allot STD booth to him under unemployment scheme. Accordingly, the STD booth was allotted to him on 05-8-1991. The defendant accorded permission to install the said telephone booth at TTD choultry Nos.2 and 3, Tirupati. On 19-10-1991, proceedings were given to the defendant to install telephone booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year and the vacant booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year for the vacant site by measuring 6 X 6 feet. After expiry of the said lease, lease was renewed for the period from 15-12-1992 to 14-12-1993. On 19-10-1991, proceedings were given to the defendant to install telephone booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year and the vacant booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year for the vacant site by measuring 6 X 6 feet. After expiry of the said lease, lease was renewed for the period from 15-12-1992 to 14-12-1993. Later on, the monthly existing rent of Rs.60/- was enhanced to Rs.75/-and issued proceedings on 21-12-1993. The said rent was not enhanced for the period from 15-12-1993 to 14-12-1994. The existing rent of Rs.75/- has enhanced to Rs.150/- per month from 15-12-1994 to 14-12-1995. Again, the existing rent of Rs.150/- was enhanced to Rs.188/- for the period from 15-12-1995 to 14-12-1996. The existing rent of Rs.188/- was enhanced to Rs.294/- from 15-12-1997 to 14-12-1998. Later on, the existing rent of Rs.294/- was enhanced to Rs.368/- from 15-12-1998 to 14-12-1999. Again, the existing rent of Rs.368/- was enhanced to Rs.460/- from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. Thus, the plaintiff has been enhancing the monthly rents from Rs.60/-to Rs.460/- per month periodically. Accordingly, the defendant has been paying the monthly rents to the plaintiff regularly without committing any default in payment of rent by the 5th of every succeeding month. Apart from the said monthly rents, the plaintiff used to collect electrical charges for the plaint schedule telephone booth. On 12-10-2000, he made a requisition to the plaintiff and the same was acknowledged on 16-10-2000 to renew the lease of plaint schedule telephone booth for another 3 years by undertaking to pay the monthly rent by enhancing 25% on the existing rent of Rs.460/-. Whenever he approached the authorities of the plaintiff, they promised that they would send renewal of the lease. The Plaintiff claiming alleged damages of Rs.13,032-99 ps is exorbitant. There is no basis to fix the alleged damages as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. He prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of damages as prayed for? (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for future damages at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month till the date of delivery of possession? (3) To what relief? 6. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of damages as prayed for? (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for future damages at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month till the date of delivery of possession? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the Assistant Executive Officer in Revenue Section, Tirupati, was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined one more witness as D.W.2. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant. 7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for Rs.14,000/- (at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002) while dismissing the suit with regard to other reliefs, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit, questioning the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 8. Heard Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff (TTD). None for the respondent/defendant. 9. The learned counsel for plaintiff would contend that the trial Court erred in granting damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 instead of Rs.13,033/- per month for the plaint schedule telephone booth as offered by one K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati, by way of tender which was accepted by the plaintiff. She would further contend that instead of granting damages as claimed by the plaintiff, a paltry amount of damages were granted by the learned trial Judge and she would further contend that the appeal may be allowed by granting damages of Rs.2,28,077/- as claimed by the plaintiff. 10. Now, the points for determination are: 1. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs any interference? 2. To what extent? 11. Point No. 1: Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs any interference? The undisputed facts are that the plaint schedule vacant site measuring 6 X 6 feet situated in 2nd new choultry of Tirupati belongs to the plaintiff was given to the defendant by way of licence to run an STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. The undisputed facts are that the plaint schedule vacant site measuring 6 X 6 feet situated in 2nd new choultry of Tirupati belongs to the plaintiff was given to the defendant by way of licence to run an STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. The same is not in dispute by the defendant. The case of the appellant is that after expiry of the above licence period, the licence was not renewed and as per rules fixed by the TTD, the authorities called for tenders for the said premises to run STD booth for a period of one year by giving publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and tender submitted by one K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was accepted as he offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards licence fee and he was the highest bidder. The plaintiff further pleaded that after expiry of licence period, the defendant has no right to run STD booth in the suit premises. 12. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for granting an amount of Rs.2,28,077/- being arrears of damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule telephone booth for the period from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month. As stated supra, licence was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. The specific case of the plaintiff is that after expiry of the lease period, a publication was given in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and tenders were called for and opened and K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was the highest bidder because he offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards licence fee. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking a huge amount of Rs.2,28,077/- in the year 2002. In those days, it is a huge amount, therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Admittedly, the defendant was granted licence to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000 and thereafter the licence was not renewed. In those days, it is a huge amount, therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Admittedly, the defendant was granted licence to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000 and thereafter the licence was not renewed. It is the severe contention of the plaintiff that as per rules of TTD, tenders were called for by way of publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and the tender submitted by K. Bhaskar Naidu was accepted. Admittedly, the said paper publication alleged to have been given in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies is not at all filed by the plaintiff and there is no documentary evidence to show that the tender submitted by K. Bhaskar Naidu was accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also did not adduce any evidence to show that the tender submitted by K. Bhaskar Naidu was accepted. The plaintiff did not make any effort to examine the said K. Bhaskar Naidu as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. As stated supra, the plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards damages from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 07-5-2002 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the suit claim. 13. The material on record reveals that the defendant filed the suit O.S. No. 201 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, against the plaintiff herein for perpetual injunction and obtained a temporary order of injunction against the plaintiff herein. Finally on hearing both sides, the temporary injunction was made absolute and the plaintiff preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal against the said order and it was also dismissed. The case of the plaintiff is that they preferred a revision before this Court and the same is pending. In fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiff. P.W.1 admits in cross-examination that he has not perused the letter of the said K. Bhaskar Naidu with a request to return the EMD. He pleaded ignorance whether the tender of Bhaskar Naidu was accepted or not. 14. Per contra, to prove the defence, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1. In fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiff. P.W.1 admits in cross-examination that he has not perused the letter of the said K. Bhaskar Naidu with a request to return the EMD. He pleaded ignorance whether the tender of Bhaskar Naidu was accepted or not. 14. Per contra, to prove the defence, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1. As per his evidence, when the plaintiff authority tried to evict him, he filed O.S. No. 201 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, for permanent injunction and a temporary injunction was also granted and the same is not in dispute by the plaintiff. As per his evidence, the defendant spent Rs.75,000/- towards construction of telephone booth, flooring, foundation and for erection of side walls and also roof with asbestos sheets. As per his evidence, he is a poor man and has no movable or immovable properties and he has to maintain his family with meagre income. He deposed in his evidence that the site measuring 6 X 6 feet is available for lease on monthly rent of Rs.450/- per month even that day. 15. In order to prove the defence, he also relied on the evidence of D.W.2. As per the evidence of D.W.2, he is owner of mechanic shop opposite to plaint schedule telephone booth at a distance of 50 years from plaint schedule telephone booth and he used to pay Rs.750/- per month as ground rent. 16. As stated supra, the plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking a huge amount of Rs.2,28,077/- for unauthorised occupation of the defendant in the plaint schedule premises. Admittedly, no cogent evidence is placed by the plaintiff for claiming damages of Rs.2,28,077/-. As stated supra, no sufficient cogent evidence is placed by the plaintiff as to the acceptance of tender of Bhaskar Naidu. Admittedly, the said Bhaskar Naidu did not deposit 6 months rent apart from giving bank guarantee for Rs.one lakh. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to fix the quantum of damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month. Exs.A-4 to A-8 reveals that the rent was enhanced periodically at 25% on existing rent for every year. As on 14-12-2000, the licence fee was at Rs.460/- per month and the same was enhanced to Rs.650/- per month for the year 2002 also. Exs.A-4 to A-8 reveals that the rent was enhanced periodically at 25% on existing rent for every year. As on 14-12-2000, the licence fee was at Rs.460/- per month and the same was enhanced to Rs.650/- per month for the year 2002 also. By giving cogent reasons, the trial Court rightly awarded damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the damages claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month for the plaint schedule premises is highly excessive and also abnormal. As stated supra, no cogent evidence is placed by the plaintiff to claim damages at such rate. On considering the material on record and also documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that awarding damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises is just and proper. The trial Court, by giving cogent reasons, fixed the damages of Rs.800/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises for the period from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the trial Court awarded in total Rs.14,000/- towards suit claim. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 18. Point No. 2: To what extent? 19. Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 01-11-2004, in O.S. No. 202 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.