IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4427 OF 2008 MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: Koppala Nagireddy and 6 others .... Petitioners And: Chennai Kesavaswamy and Anjaneyaswamy Temples, Pasalur village. ....Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4427 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the tenants in respect of Acs.17.00 of agricultural land in survey Nos.391 and 392 of Pasalur village of Anantapur Distrrict, owned by Sri Chenna Kesavaswamy and Anjaneyaswamy Temples, the respondent herein. The tenancy is said to have commenced in the year 1991-92 for a lease amount of Rs.4,000/- per annum. The respondent filed T.A.No.1 of 2000 before the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, for eviction of the petitioners. It was pleaded that the petitioners committed default in payment of rent. The petitioners filed counters, opposing the case. They admitted the tenancy. However, perpetual tenancy was pleaded on the strength of an order, dated 26.6.1996 in T.A.No.1 of 1993. The trial Court dismissed the T.A.No.1 of 2000 through order dated 05.06.2006. The respondent filed ATA No.1 of 2006 before the Court of the District Judge, Ananthapur. Through its judgment dated 22.08.2008, the lower appellate court allowed the ATA and directed the eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property. The same is challenged in this CRP. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lower trial court has drawn several inferences and directed the eviction. He submits that the petitioners were declared as perpetual tenants in the earlier round of litigation and ignoring the same, the lower appellate court ordered eviction. Sri V.T.M Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent Devastanam on the other hand submits that the petitioners committed default in payment of the rent and they have been enjoying the land without complying the conditions of the lease. He submits that by operation of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the lease stood terminated and that the petitioners are not entitled to remain in the possession of the land. There is no dispute as to the claim of the petitioners as tenants in respect of the petition schedule property. It commenced in the year 1991-92 for a period of two years. The petitioners have filed a Tenancy Application No.1 of 1993 to declare them as tenants in perpetuity and that application was ordered. Thereafter, the respondents filed TA No.1 of 2000 for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they committed default in payment of the rent and caused damage to the property. The petitioners disputed this averment. On behalf of the respondent PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-4 were filed. On behalf of the petitioners R.W 1 and 2 were examined and no documents were filed. The trial court dismissed the application. The allegation as to damage to the property by selling the soil was held not proved. The lower appellate court recorded the finding to the effect that the petitioners committed default in payment of rent and directed eviction of the petitioners. Irrespective of the merits of the matter, a serious question as to the maintainability of the proceedings arises for consideration. As on the date of filing of T.A.No.1/2000, the provisions of the A.P. Andhra Area Tenancy Act were applicable to the lands held by the Religious Institutions, and leased to others. Two years thereafter, there was a substantial change in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Tenancy Act do not apply to such lands and that the leases in respect of the agricultural land held by the religious institutions stand terminated by operation of Section 82 of the Act. Unfortunately, this aspect was not canvassed before the Courts below. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute this legal position. Irrespective of the acts or omissions on the part of the petitioners, vis- à-vis leased lands, the tenancy in their favour stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of the Act. Subject to the exceptions that are contained under the provisions of law, the respondent is not entitled to put the land in the auction without the necessity of initiating the proceedings for eviction. It is not known as to whether the petitioners have been declared as small farmers under the concerned provisions of the Act. Fairly in large number of cases, it was observed that lease hold rights in such lands shall be put to auction, fresh leases be granted, if the existing lessees are inclined to pay the amount fetched in the highest bid and to evict them if they are not inclined. Hence the CRP is disposed of directing that; a) the lease over petition schedule property in favour of the petitioners stood terminated by operation of Section 82 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, b) It shall be open to the petitioners to seek declaration as to their status as small farmers in terms of the Act, and as and when such applications are made, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Endowment, shall deal with them on their own merit, c) It shall be open to the respondent to put the lease hold rights in respect of the lands to auction. In case the petitioners emerge as highest bidders are willing to pay the amount that is fetched in the highest bid, they shall be continued as afresh tenants, subject to determination of their status as small farmers. If they are not willing, the possession of the land shall be handed over to the highest bidder, d) It shall be open to the respondent to institute separate proceedings for recovery of the arrears, if any, There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date: 17.08.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4427 OF 2008 ORDER: Date: 17.08.2009. Gk.