IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28562 OF 2010 DATED:22.11.2010 Between: Madimi Appa Rao … Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Rajahmundry East Godavari District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28562 OF 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No.249 of 2009. The second respondent - temple has forwarded the proposals to the first respondent under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), for taking steps for removal of encroachment of the shop in an extent of 10 feet x 12 feet, in the premises belong to the second respondent temple. On such proposals and on an application filed by the first respondent, the same was numbered as O.A.No.249 of 2009 and notice under Section 83(2) of the Act, was issued to the petitioner to putforth his defence. Except stating that he is in possession of the property for the last several years and he is not in arrears of rent, virtually there was no defence to continue the possession. Even according to the documents and the case put forward by the second respondent, the lease had come to an end by 31.5.2005 and thereafter it was not extended by the competent authority. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and issued directions to vacate the premises and handover the O.A. schedule property to the second respondent - temple. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no arrears and the petitioner has been paying the rents and continued in possession and hence there are no valid reasons for ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Although it is the case of the petitioner that there are no arrears, but the fact remains that there is no approved lease to seek continuation of possession of the premises in question. In the absence of any approved lease, the petitioner is only an encroacher in the property belonging to the second respondent – temple. In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner has paid rents without any arrears that by itself is no ground to continue in possession of the property. In the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is clearly stated that the property is situated in a busy locality and will fetch huge rent, if the leasehold rights are sold in auction. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, to entertain this writ petition. However, in view of the plea of the petitioner that he has been in continuous possession of the property for several years, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any steps for eviction of the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today, subject to giving a written undertaking by him, within a period of one week from today, to vacate the premises on expiry of four weeks time. If such a written undertaking is not filed in terms of this order, it is open to the respondents to take steps for eviction of the petitioner immediately. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22.11.2010 bnr