THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1611 to 1618 of 2009 Date of Order:11.03.2011 Between: Kunala Punnayya Annapurna Satram, Vijayawada, Rep. By its Executive Officer. ..Petitioner and Sri Kunala Punna Rao and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1611 to 1618 of 2009 COMMON ORDER :- All these revisions are filed by the Executive Officer of Kunala Punnayya Annapurna Satram of Vijayawada, with the leave of the Court to revise the orders of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed on 13.02.2009 in I.A.No.785 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.12 of 2003, I.A.No.787 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.14 of 2003, I.A.No.779 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.20 of 2003, I.A.No.782 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.21 of 2003, I.A.No.784 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.17 of 2003, I.A.No.776 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.13 of 2003, I.A.No.783 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.19 of 2003, I.A.No.786 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.15 of 2003 respectively, by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The managing trustee of Kunala Punnayyagari Annapurna Satram-1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “Satram”) filed the impugned petition under Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act XV of 1960) for a direction to the tenant to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent and on his failure, to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the 1st respondent herein/petitioner therein in possession of the building. The respondent/tenant in the I.A. resisted the petition, by filing counter. The learned rent controller, having considered the respective stand of the parties, allowed the I.As., and directed the respondent/tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent upto date within one month from the date of the order. Otherwise the proceedings of the main R.C.C. will be stopped and the petitioner will be put in possession of the petition schedule property. The Executive Officer, claiming to be in-charge of the said Satram, filed all these revisions questioning the said order contending that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain any application as the Executive Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the Satram by the Commissioner of Endowments in proceedings No.G1/42760/2000, dated 06.01.2001, which has been unsuccessfully challenged by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.19351 of 2002; and that the order passed in A.S.No.138 of 1999, dated 29.03.2005, declaring that the Satram is a private trust, has been suspended in SA.CMP.No.1441 of 2005 in S.A.No.732 of 2005. Therefore, the petitioner in the R.C.C. cannot maintain the R.C.C. and the order passed by the Rent Controller is illegal. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that once the Executive Officer is appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments, which has been affirmed by this Court in dismissing W.P.No.19351 of 2002, with the finding that the Executive Officer has already assumed the office, the R.C.C. filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable as the Rent Controller will not have jurisdiction to entertain the R.C.Cs., against the endowed property, which has been proceeded only as per the Endowments Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents contends that against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department in O.A.No.162 of 1992, declaring that the Satram is a public charitable institution coming within the purview of the Endowments Act, the 1st respondent herein carried the matter in appeal being A.S.No.138 of 1999 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Machilipatnam and the same was allowed setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A.No.162 of 1992 declaring that the Satram is a private trust, which has become final. Against the finding of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, that the sons of Kunnala Purnachandra Rao are entitled to manage the trust, the petitioner/landlord filed C.R.P.No.4205 of 2005 and the brothers of the petitioner/landlord filed S.A.No.732 of 2005, in which this Court directed to maintain status quo. Further, the 1st respondent also filed WP.MP.No.18392 of 2006 to review the orders in W.P.No.19351 of 2002 and the same is still pending. Therefore, the Executive Officer has no right to question the order passed by the Rent Controller and hence the revisions are liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the Endowment Department is a party to the appeal in A.S.No.138 of 1999, including the petitioner herein, who is an Executive Officer and who was impleaded through I.A.No.256 of 2001 in A.S.No.138 of 1999 on 09.01.2003. The said appeal was filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in O.A.No.162 of 1992 declaring the Satram as a public charitable institution coming within the purview of the Endowments Act. The appellate court set aside the said finding and declared it as a private trust. The said order has become final against the petitioner since they have not preferred any appeal. But there are inter se disputes among the brothers and hence C.R.P.No.4205 of 2005 and S.A.No.732 of 2005 are filed. Once the Satram is declared as a private trust, the 1st respondent herein, who is the managing trustee of the private trust, can always file rent control proceedings against the tenant for his eviction and recovery of the rents. In view of the same, the order passed by the rent controller directing the tenant to deposit the rents into the Court, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. If the petitioner herein has any right to manage the affairs of the Satram, it is always open for him to avail the remedies available to him as per law and he can also file a petition for his impleadment in the R.C.C, if law permits. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the amounts deposited by the tenant should not be allowed to be withdrawn for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 11, 2011 Lmv