THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1031 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of A.P.Endowments Tribunal in O.A.No.1373 of 2010 dated 13.10.2010.

The respondent therein is the appellant. The petitioners therein are the respondents herein.
The dispute is in respect of a tiled house and appurtenant site in an extent of 63 Ankanams and 55 Sq.yards (433 Sq.yards) in D.No.9/77 of Sullurpet.
Contending that the appellant is an encroacher of the above property, the respondents filed O.A. stated above under Section 83 of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987). An application in that respect was presented by the second respondent to the first respondent complaining against the appellant and also to the effect that the premises was taken on lease by father of the appellant Sri late Ramaiah. It was further complained by the respondents that upon death of Sri Ramaiah, the appellant continued to be in its occupation without any valid lease or orders of the competent authority, who also defaulted in paying any amount towards damages for use and occupation.
Resisting this claim of the respondents, the appellant filed a counter mainly contending that his father Sri Ramaiah had taken the premises on lease in the year 1965 on a monthly rental of Rs.35/- from the then Managing Trustee of the second respondent temple and, upon death of his father in the year 2005, he continued to be in occupation of the same premises paying monthly rent as enhanced from time to time.

He also claimed that this premises is in dilapidated condition and not fit for human dwelling. He further contended that, during lifetime of his father, he got the premises repaired. He also contended that he was paying the rent whenever Executive officer of the second respondent temple visited Sullurpet and denied the allegation that he defaulted in paying rents from August, 2008. He also contended that during lifetime of his father he got electricity connection for this premises spending his money and has characterized himself as a valid occupant being not an encroacher.

In the enquiry, on behalf of the respondents, Manager of the 2nd respondent temple was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in support of its claim. The appellant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.
Basing on the material, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration.

i) Whether the respondent (appellant herein) is an encroacher and is liable to be evicted?
ii) To what result?

Considering the material as well as the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal found that the appellant is an encroacher being a tenant at sufferance and thus allowed the Original Application, directing the appellant to vacate and handover the premises in question within one month. It was further directed that in case of default by the appellant to vacate the premises as stated above, liberty was given to the respondents to get him evicted as provided under law, while granting a month's time for the appellant to vacate the premises.
The above order is now impugned by the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Sri Suresh Kumar R., learned counsel for the appellant contended referring to the subsequent events, which occurred after the date of the award of the Tribunal below, while asserting that never a notice was issued to him in terms of Section 83(2) of Act 30 of 1987. Denying that he has been encroacher of the premises in question muchless as a defaulter, it is contended that he be given an opportunity to continue in possession of the premises.
Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent while supporting the order under appeal informed this Court that following the directions of the award of the Tribunal, the respondents, in fact, had taken steps and got him evicted from the premises in question on 14.05.2019. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that as per orders in I.A.No.1 of 2019 this Court directed that status quo be maintained obtaining as on 12.06.2019 and taking advantage of the same, on 14.05.2019, the appellant took forcible possession of the premises. Contending that there is material to establish that the appellant is an encroacher, who was squatting over the property without any approval from the concerned authority, it is requested to dismiss this appeal.
Learned Standing counsel for Endowments Department also supported the order under appeal taking a similar stand as of the second respondent.
Now the following points arise for determination.
Whether the appellant is an encroacher of the premises in question liable to be evicted therefrom?

2. If the order of the Tribunal questioned in this appeal is proper?

POINT No.1:-

It is not in dispute that Sri late Ramaiah was a tenant of the premises since the year 1965 till he died during the year 2005. Thereafter, the appellant continued to be in possession of the premises.
In respect of occupation of this premises, as seen from the material available on record, the appellant did not obtain any approval of the competent authority of the second respondent temple. Though he relied on Exs.R1 to R9 to prove the fact of collection of rents from him on behalf of the second respondent, in the absence of any proof that his occupation was authorised on behalf of the respondents, it cannot be stated that it amounted to occupation having legal character and nature. Juridical possession of the property, as rightly observed in the order of the Tribunal, amounts to occupation by a tenant at sufferance.
When a tenant at sufferance remains in occupation, it cannot have status than that of an encroacher. Rightly in this context, reliance was placed before the Tribunal in Joint Commissioner, Endowments,

A.P.,Hyderabad vs. Sk.Meera Saheb, AIR, 1977 AP 100(DB).

Thus, the nature of occupation of the appellant made out as of an encroacher. Therefore, it is amenable for action under Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987.
As seen from Ex.P4, a notice was issued to the appellant with reference to Section 83(2) of the Act 30 of 1987. Upon giving full opportunity to the appellant, the Tribunal directed his eviction from the premises, finding his status as that of an encroacher.
The contention of the appellant that he gave a representation to the authorities concerned, is not supported by any other material nor was a copy of such representation brought in evidence on his behalf, in the enquiry before the tribunal. He cannot attempt, in this appeal, to producing a copy, which is undated and without any indication that it was received by the concerned authority to whom it was addressed. Even appropriate procedure is not attempted to be followed by the appellant in this regard.
Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, basing on the material, observations of the Tribunal below, holding that the appellant is an encroacher of the premises in question, should be confirmed, since it is so established from the material on record. Thus, point No.1 is answered in favour of the respondents against the appellant.

POINT No.2:-

The Endowments Tribunal has taken into consideration the material in right perspective in recording the findings as adverted to in point No.1 supra. There are no circumstances calling for interference of these findings. Consequently, the order of the Endowment Tribunal has to be confirmed.
In the result, this CMA is dismissed with costs of the respondents. Order of A.P.Endowments Tribunal dated 13.10.2010 in O.A.No.1373 of 2010 is confirmed. Interim order shall stand vacated. Pending petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 08.11.2019 RRR