THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.2105 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice GODA RAGHURAM) This appeal is by the un-successful writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed in W.P.No.13845 of 2004, whereby the writ petition is dismissed. According to the appellant, he is a cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.40-11 cent of land in Survey No.614, Hattibelegal village, Alur Mandal, belonging to the 1st respondent – Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Manthralayam. As pleaded in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, his father was granted a lease in 1956 which continued until his death in 1986 and thereafter the appellant was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by paying the lease amount regularly to the 1st respondent. There was a partition among the family members during the life time of his father and an extent of Ac.2.40 cents was allotted to his share. The 1st respondent recognized him as a statutory tenant and also filed O.S.No.122 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Aluru, for recovery of Rs.400/- towards arrears of lease amount for the year 1984-85. The said suit was however dismissed on 30.03.1990. Thereafter, the Manager of the 1st respondent demanded lease amount at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per year and threatened to cancel the lease. The appellant therefore filed A.T.C.No.1 of 1996 before the Tenancy Court i.e., Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Aluru, under Section 6 of the A.P. Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956 for fixation of fair rent. Though the said suit was dismissed for default on 15.02.2000, he filed an application for restoration of the suit and the same is pending. He deposited the agreed lease amount of Rs.1,000/- to the credit of A.T.C.No.1 of 1996 and claims that there are no arrears of lease amount. While so, the 1st respondent notified on 06.07.2004 for auction of the schedule property fixing the date of auction on 07.07.2004 for grant of leasehold rights. The auction was, however, not conducted on 07.07.2004, but postponed. The writ petitioner/appellant got issued a telegram on 06.07.2004 through his Counsel requesting the 1st respondent not to conduct the auction in view of the pendency of A.T.C.No.1 of 1996 and A.T.C.No.1 of 2001, latter A.T.C. having been filed seeking injunction restraining the 1st respondent Mutt from interfering with the appellant’s possession. The writ petitioner/appellant further pleaded in the writ petition that on 25.07.2004 he was called by the police on the complaint of one P.Mallikarjuna Reddy (2nd respondent), who claimed to have been the successful bidder in respect of the leasehold rights of the lands in question in the auction held on 07.07.2004 and complained that the petitioner/appellant was interfering with his lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands. In the counter-affidavit, it is categorically asserted that on 15.07.2004 auction was conducted and the 2nd respondent put in possession of the lands in question. In dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge recorded that the petitioner was never a tenant of the schedule property, which admittedly belongs to the 1st respondent Mutt; auction was conducted on 15.07.2004 which was intimated to the writ petitioner as well as the other participants and published in the village by beat of tom-tom; that the 2nd respondent was the successful bidder at the auction held on 15.07.2004; as the writ petitioner failed to participate in the auction he cannot resist grant of lease in favour of the 2nd respondent and is also not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 as the petitioner never acquired any right of tenancy and was never recognized by the 1st respondent as a tenant. We see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal as there is no discernable error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the Court below warranting interference. The writ petitioner/appellant was admittedly never conferred any tenancy on the schedule property. Admittedly, his father was granted a lease of the schedule property in the year 1956. The writ petitioner is singularly silent as to whether the land was granted for the tenure of the life time of his father, a position inconceivable in respect of property of an Endowment Institution, having regard to the provisions of the earlier A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and the provisions of current enactment i.e., the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. In any event, no principle of law is vouchsafed in support of the contention that the lease granted in favour of the father of the writ petitioner/appellant is heritable and would devolve on the appellant on the death of his father. In the totality of the circumstances including the fact that the writ petitioner/appellant did not participate in the auction conducted on 15.07.2004 before grant of lease of the schedule property, he has no right whatsoever and is disentitled to any relief. On the analysis of the above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:04.07.2011 Gsn.