THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21912 of 2011 Date: 03.08.2011 Between: P. Nagabushan Rao … Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, West Godavari District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21912 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri B.P. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for 1st respondent and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The order dated 4.2.2011 in O.A.No.2195 of 2010 (old No.28 of 2007 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada) passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The shop bearing Door No.3A-1-9, situated at Clock Tower Road, Eluru-I, belongs to the 2nd respondent-institution, namely Sri Annavastra Vyda Vidya Dana Samajam, Eluru, West Godavari District. The petitioner was a lessee of the said premises upto 31.3.2006 and the lease was not extended after its expiry on 31.3.2006. The petitioner fell in arrears of rent and continued to squat on the premises without any valid lease. Therefore, Ex.A-1 quit notice dated 1.10.2006 was issued to the petitioner for vacating the said premises. As he failed to do so, proceedings were initiated for his eviction under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”) initially before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, which was subsequently transferred to the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 adduced evidence by examining P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2, quit notice and reply notice issued by the respondent, respectively. The petitioner did not examine himself or any other witness, nor marked any documents. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 allowed the O.A. holding that the lease expired by 31.3.2006 and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises as an encroacher and accordingly directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Sri B.P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an encroacher as he was legally inducted into the subject premises. He submits that even though the lease expired on 31.3.2006, the petitioner has been paying the rents regularly, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher. He further submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the enhanced rent. 6. I am unable to accept the said contentions. Admittedly, the lease in respect of the subject premises expired on 31.3.2006. The petitioner did not vacate the said premises inspite of the demand under Ex.A-1. As per the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, a person, who continues to remain in the premises after the expiry or termination or cancellation of lease, shall be treated as an encroacher. Therefore, the petitioner, whose lease expired on 31.3.2006, is an encroacher within the meaning of the said provision. Further, the Tribunal found that the petitioner fell in arrears of the lease amount. However, the petitioner states that there are no arrears. Even if that be so, after expiry of the lease, the petitioner cannot seek any protection merely because he has been paying the lease amount since the payment is for being in possession and enjoyment of the subject premises. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by running business in the subject premises and it will take some time for securing an alternative accommodation. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks three months time for vacating the premises. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent does not object for the same. 8. In the circumstances, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the subject premises subject to the condition of the petitioner filing an undertaking before the 2nd respondent-institution within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order that (i) he would vacate the premises on or before 01.11.2011 without any hindrance, and that (ii) he shall also continue to pay the rent regularly. In the event of default of the said conditions, this order granting extension of time to vacate the premises shall stand vacated. 9. Save extension of time as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 03.08.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21912 of 2011 03.08.2011 (Msr)