HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28040 of 2008 Date: July 12, 2011 Between: Kasana Vijay Kumar … Petitioner And 1. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad & 5 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28040 of 2008 O R D E R: Sri Kesarapally Anjaneya Dharmasala, Eluru, West Godavari District, the fifth respondent, issued auction notice dated 10.6.2007 with regard to the leasehold rights of Shop No.11 situated in its premises at the old bus depot in Eluru Town and Mandal, West Godavari District, for a period of three years from 01.7.2007 to 30.6.2010. The petitioner emerged the highest bidder and the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, under proceedings dated 26.6.2007 approved the grant of the subject lease in his favour. Challenging the same, the sixth respondent, a member of the Dharmasala’s founder’s family, filed R.P. No.5 of 2008 before the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh. One amongst the grounds taken by him was that the petitioner had demolished a portion of the leased shop without due permission. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, taking note of the admission of the petitioner as to this aspect, held that the same was against the terms of the lease and the interest of the institution and accordingly cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioner by order dated 29.11.2008. Pursuant thereto, the Dharmasala issued eviction notice dated 16.12.2008 requiring the petitioner to vacate the shop with immediate effect and hand over the same to the Dharmasala authorities. The order in the R.P and the notice aforestated are subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 2. This Court, by order dated 24.12.2008, while adjourning the matter to 29.12.2008 granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the property in question pursuant to the impugned orders in the meanwhile. Again on 29.12.2008, this Court directed that pending further orders there shall be interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the shop in question and also directed the respondents not to put the leasehold rights of the shop in question to auction. On 22.01.2009 the writ petition was admitted and the interim order granted on 24.12.2008 was made absolute. 3. Though contentious arguments are advanced by Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N. Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the inescapable fact that glares from the record is that the lease period under the auction notice dated 10.6.2007 has worked itself out. The lease thereunder was only for a period of three years from 01.7.2007 up to 30.6.2010. It is the contention of Sri Srinivas Polavarapu that in spite of the orders passed by this Court, his client was not inducted into possession and had suffered monetary damages due to the conduct of the fifth respondent Dharmasala. Pertinent to note, no contempt case was filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience to the interim orders passed by this Court. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent Dharmasala also disputes the averment of the learned counsel in this regard. 4. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to enter into disputed questions of fact when the subject lease has worked itself out due to efflux of time. The petitioner was entitled to grant of leasehold rights for a specified period and as the period has now expired, he can, at best, have a right to claim damages against the respondents, if aggrieved by any action/inaction on their part. Similarly, it is the contention of Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the fifth respondent Dharmasala that the petitioner failed to pay the leasehold amounts due. Both these rival monetary claims cannot be redressed by this Court in the present writ petition. Whatever be the disputes between the parties in this regard, they would necessarily have to approach the competent civil Court. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Interim orders granted by this Court shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 12, 2011. BSB