THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A. No.510 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 26.03.2011 passed in O.A.No.1282 of 2010 (Old No. 77 of 2007 of Deputy Commissioner, Guntur) on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowment Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants seeking eviction of the appellants/ respondents herein was allowed with costs and the appellants /respondents were directed to vacate and hand over the schedule premises within one month by written intimation to the applicants herein. 2 The facts in brief are that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur (1st applicant) forwarded the proposals to the Tribunal below Under Section 83 of the Act, 30 of 1987 submitted by the 2nd applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institution’), against the respondents/appellants styling them as encroachers of an extent of 153 Sq. Yards site in which a tiled house with a varandah situated at Sangadigunta, Guntur City, belonging to the institution, stating that the appellants/ respondents are continuing in the property without any valid lease approval orders of the competent authority after the earlier lease expired, without regularly paying amounts towards damages for use and occupation, and has been squatting over the property and failed to vacate the premises despite notices, and that they fell in arrears towards damages for use and occupation, that the schedule property fetch huge amount if leased out as per rules and thereby requested for an order removing the appellants/ respondents from encroachment. 3 The appellants/respondents filed counter before the Tribunal denying and disputing the petition averments and contended that they are not in unauthorized occupation of the schedule property and not encroachers and are not liable to vacate the shop, that the application is barred by res-judicata in view of the dismissal for default of the O.A.No.65 of 1997 for the property against one Rama Kotamma W/o Kotaiah, and that while Kotaiah was working as watchman in the institution the schedule property was given to him, in the schedule property paddy was being stored, Kotaiah obtained Electric service in his own name and enjoyed the property till his death and after his death the property devolved upon his wife Rama Kotamma and their two daughters who put up a bunk in the property for their livelihood and were selling sodas and that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 has no application to the property and prayed to dismiss the O.A. 4 During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, the Chairman by name Rayavarapu Ashok Kumar of the Institution was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the appellants/ respondents the first respondent before the Tribunal below was examined as R.W.1 and his wife Sivamma was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 5 The Tribunal, after assessing the entire material available before it allowed the said O.A. with costs and directed the appellants/ respondents to vacate and hand over the schedule premises to the applicants within one month by written intimation to the applicants herein. Hence the present appeal. 6 The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the property in question was given to the appellants for the services rendered by them to the institution and that the appellants and their family members have been in enjoyment of the property for more than 60 years and therefore they perfected their title to the property by way of adverse possession and hence he prays to allow the appeal. 7 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that the title is not in dispute and under section 84(2) of the Endowment Act, when the title is not in dispute, the appeal itself is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8 The Original Application is fled for eviction of the appellants / respondents and handover the schedule premises within one month. The institution is claiming title by virtue of registered sale deeds Exs.P.1 to P.3. From a perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.3 it is clear that the Institution is having title to the property. These documents are not denied or disputed by the respondents/appellants Even the appellants / respondents did not file any document to show how they got right, title and interest over the property. They filed only Exs.R.2 and R.3, which at best show that they are in possession of the property. 9 The case of the Endowments – Institution is that the schedule property was given on lease and therefore they got issued notices to the appellants / respondents to vacate the premises. Therefore, the status of the appellants / respondents is nothing but unauthorized occupants. As the appellants / respondents failed to vacate the schedule premises they issued notice and Ex.P.4 is the office copy of the notice. The appellants / respondents have not filed any document to show that they are continuing in the schedule property by virtue of any valid lease. Therefore, in the absence of such a document showing the valid lease, the appellants / respondents can be said to be trespassers or unauthorized occupants. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly ordered for eviction of the appellants / respondents and that order needs no interference by this court. 10 For taking a plea of adverse possession, there must be evidence to show that the appellants / respondents have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property to the knowledge of the true owner. Except Exs.R.2 and R.3 no other documents are filed to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 12 years. Such evidence is lacking in the present case. In the absence of any such evidence the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellants / respondents. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11 Admittedly, the appellants / respondents are in possession of the property for a considerable length of period. They have to make alternate arrangement for securing suitable accommodation. Hence a reasonable time can be granted to enable them to vacate the schedule premises. Considering the facts and circumstances, six months’ time is granted to the appellants / respondents from today to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the Institution, failing which, the respondents herein can execute the order. This order is subject to payment of rents every month. Even in the case of default of rent for one month, the respondent can execute the decree in terms of the order. 12 In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ------------------ K.C. Bhanu, J. 28.09.2011