IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.326 of 1997 Between: Jampala Nagaiah … Appellant And Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, rep., by its Executive Officer, Tirupati Post, Chittoor District. … Respondent Counsel for the appellant : Sri M.P. Chandramouli Counsel for the respondents : None This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.326 of 1997 JUDGMENT:- This second appeal arises out of judgment dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.96 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Tirupati, who confirmed judgment and decree dated 31.08.1996 in O.S.No.285 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. I have heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The plaintiff in the above O.S. is the appellant in this appeal. He filed O.S.No.285 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short, ‘TTD’), and its subordinates from dispossessing him from the suit building and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the electric supply to the said building. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff was in occupation of the suit building belonging to the defendant since the year 1982. According to him, the building was given on lease for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and that the rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.398/-. It is his further plea that the said building was allotted to him for his convenience as he was allotted space for running a café near the bus stand. He filed the suit for injunction when proceedings dated 22.03.1988 were issued by the Joint Executive Officer of the defendant demanding the plaintiff to vacate the premises in question. The defendant filed a written statement, wherein it was averred that the suit building belongs to it, that it denied leasing the said premises to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was the proprietor of a hotel called Murali Café situated at D.M.B. Road, Tirumala and the said structure along with the land was taken over by the defendant through private negotiations with effect from 05.07.1982 and actual possession was taken on 19.03.1984, and that a sum of Rs.2,61,360/- was paid towards compensation for the said land @ Rs.40/- per square feet and Rs.98,220/- as compensation for super-structure. It is the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff was given licence to run a canteen at TTD bus stand at Tirumala, that the plaintiff requested the defendant to allot a residential quarter behind the said canteen premises for duly erecting a shed for the purpose of constructing his residence and that as the construction of the shed will take sometime, at the request of the plaintiff, a cottage bearing No.306 in S.N.C. area without furniture was allotted to him purely as a temporary measure with effect from 06.07.1982 on payment of standard rent of Rs.398/- per month vide proceedings dated 27.07.1982. It is thus the case of the defendant that the allotment of the suit premises, made in favour of the plaintiff, was purely a temporary arrangement. The defendant admitted issuance of proceedings dated 22.03.1988 and disconnection of power supply on 25.04.1988. The defendant further averred that in December, 1982 itself, the shed was erected behind the canteen with all amenities, that vide letter dated 06.01.1983, the plaintiff was informed about the same and that as the accommodation, as agreed between the parties, was made available, the defendant sought the plaintiff’s eviction from the suit premises, which was given to him purely as a temporary measure. On behalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendant, one P.J.Purushotham Naidu was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. The trial Court framed the following issues “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit building? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to restore electric supply to the suit building? 3. To what relief?” and by a detailed judgment held all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court concurred with the findings rendered by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that even if the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff was temporary, as found by the Courts below, the defendant cannot evict the plaintiff without following due process of law. I have considered this submission of the learned counsel and I do not find any merit therein. From the evidence on record, it is quite evident that the plaintiff was allotted the suit cottage purely as a temporary measure under Ex.B1. It is also not in dispute that a shed was erected behind the place where the plaintiff was allowed to run the canteen to accommodate him and thereafter a notice was given under Ex.B4 informing the plaintiff that the shed was ready for occupation. Instead of vacating the suit cottage, the plaintiff approached the trial Court by filing the civil suit. As the plaintiff failed to vacate the cottage, the permission granted by the defendant was cancelled under two separate proceedings vide Exs.B6 and B8. As rightly found by the Courts below, after the cancellation of the permission, the status of the plaintiff was that of a trespasser and that, therefore, a trespasser was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. Having carefully considered the reasoning of the Courts below, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.02.2010 ES