HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.21355 of 2009 Date: November 18, 2009 Between: K. Ramachandra Rao …Petitioner And 1. Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments Department, Multizone-II, Tirupati, Chittoor District and 3 others. …Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard Sri K. Jayakumar, learned counsel representing writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments representing R-1 to R-3 and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, representing R-4. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 08.10.2009 and granted status quo for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. 3. The 4th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.3357 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. At this stage, at the request of the counsel on record, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of finally. 4. Sri K. Jayakumar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the reasons recorded by the first respondent while dismissing the R.P.No.2 of 2009 and would maintain that since all the documents had not been considered in proper perspective, the writ petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also further pointed out to the relevant portions of the order made by the second respondent and also the order made by the first respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Primary Authority and the Revisional Authority, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 6. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel representing 4th respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that inasmuch as convincing reasons had been recorded, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the tenant of the shop bearing door No.23-9-9 situate at R. Agraharam, Guntur Town and District belonging to the 4th respondent Choultry and the rent paid by the petitioner for the said shop in the year 1964 was Rs.55/- and the same was enhanced from time to time and now the petitioner has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any obstacle. 8. It is also stated that while so, the 4th respondent, with a mala fide intention, made a complaint to the third respondent stating that the petitioner is an encroacher of the premises. The petitioner after receiving notice in O.A.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the second respondent contested the same. 9. Further it is averred that the second respondent, without taking into consideration of the Exhibits R-1 to R-4, had erroneously come to the conclusion that there was an encroachment over the shop belonging to the Choultry and declared the petitioner as an encroacher under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed R.P.No.2 of 2009 under Section 92 of the Act and also filed stay petition. As the first respondent had not granted stay of all further proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4504 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 03.3.2009 directing the first respondent to dispose of R.P.No.2 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of that order and till such time, the orders passed in O.A.No.24 of 2005, dated 27.12.2008, shall not be given effect to. The first respondent, without taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner and material placed on record, had erroneously dismissed the revision petition on 22.8.2009. Several grounds also had been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is averred that this respondent choultry is a public charitable institution and published under Section 6 (c) of the Act and under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, and is being represented by the founder trustees. The said choultry was established in the year 1885 by their ancestors Madisetty Mahalakshmamma along with her daughter Garlapati Rangamma with their own money for the purpose of shelter to way farers. 11. Further it is averred that the petitioner took the schedule mentioned shop on lease long ago and was paying a rent of Rs.600/- from December 2000 onwards, by executing a written lease deed agreeing the period of lease for 3 years up to 30th November 2003. After completion of the said period, the 4th respondent requested the petitioner to enhance the rent from December, 2003 on par with the prevailing market rate in the vicinity. But, the petitioner failed to do so and on the other hand the petitioner illegally and unauthorisedly sub- let the schedule shop to one Munagala Venkata Krishna Subba Rao (second respondent in O.A.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur) and had been earning huge amounts on that sub-lease. In spite of repeated demands, the petitioner became a defaulter in payment of monthly rents. 12. It is also stated that the petitioner fell in arrears from 01.12.2003 onwards for a continuous period of 15 months. It is not correct to say that since the founder trustee of 4th respondent did not evince any interest in receiving rents and went on pilgrimage on the death of his wife, the petitioner is unable to pay the rents. The petitioner paid the arrears of rents for the said 15 months only after 4th respondent got issued a registered legal notice dated 28.9.2004 demanding vacation of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of rent. 13. Further it is stated that the petitioner falsely mentioned that Munagala Venkata Krishna Subba Rao is his working partner. If it is true, nothing prevented him to file the partnership agreement and R.C. of their business. The shop was named as “Munagala Steel House” in the name of sub-lessee. The petitioner had executed a rental agreement dated 08.8.2001 in favour of Munagala Venkata Krishna Subba Rao. It is also stated that when a notice was sent to the said Munagala Venkata Krishna Subba Rao, by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, in O.A.No.24 of 2005 intimating him about the allegations in the case and calling upon him to attend the court to raise any objections, he did not attend the court and remained ex parte. The said sub-lessee had Rc.No.2923, dated 29.6.2002 with T.I.N.No.28450 90 655 with the Sales Tax Department showing the subject shop as the address. 14. Eviction petition is filed seeking for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had sub-let the property and became a defaulter and did not possess valid lease. As per the provisions of the Act, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that he is not an encroacher. But, instead of proving his case, the petitioner is trying to mislead the case by stating that there are allegations against the founder trustees in the management of the choultry. 15. As there are no lease approval orders in favour of the petitioner from the competent authority of the Endowments Department and as the Revision Petitioner illegally and unauthorisedly sub-let the property to the second respondent in eviction petition i.e., Munagala Venkata Krishna Subba Rao, both of them became encroachers as per Section 83 of the Act and as such liable to be evicted from the schedule property. Therefore, the primary authority, after a prolonged inquiry, allowed the eviction petition directing the petitioner to hand over the property within 30 days to the founder trustees. 16. Further it is stated that it is false to mention that there are family disputes in between the petitioner and the founder trustees of the 4th respondent choultry. It is also averred that it is false to mention that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, failed to take any action against the other tenants. There are no regular defaulters of rent as regards the other four shops belonging to the 4th respondent choultry. The said tenants of other shops are enhancing the rents periodically and using the shops for their own business by paying security deposit also. 17. Further it is stated that it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had got 8 shops of his own in the vicinity of the petition schedule shop and is getting huge amounts as rents. But, still he wants to squat on the public charitable property and to earn on the charitable property for his selfish ends by sub-letting the same. 18. It is also averred that as the petitioner became a chronic defaulter and got no approved lease and sub-let the property, the second respondent passed eviction orders on 27.12.2008 directing the petitioner as well as the sub-lessee i.e., second respondent in eviction case, to vacate and hand over the schedule mentioned shop to the 4th respondent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the orders. 19. Again, against the said eviction orders, the petitioner filed revision in R.P.No.2 of 2009 before the first respondent and the said revision was dismissed on 22.8.2009. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed with false averments. In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is stated that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. The non-consideration of certain documents had been made a ground of attack. No doubt, it is stated that the petitioner is a senior citizen and is in possession of the shop in question from 1964 onwards and has been paying rents regularly. The relationship also had been pointed out and further specific stand had been taken that there is no sub-letting. Ex.R-2, Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4 also had been heavily relied on and non-appreciation thereof had been specifically pointed out and certain submissions were made. 21. This Court had carefully gone through the order made by the second respondent which was confirmed by the first respondent as well. Even if Exs.R-1 to R-4 to be considered in elaboration, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that it would not alter the situation. When that being so, the findings recorded by the Primary Authority and the Revisional Authority being concurrent findings, especially, in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Primary Authority as confirmed by the Revisional Authority are hereby confirmed and the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: November 18, 2009. BSB