THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20179 OF 2008 O R D E R: The 4th respondent is a recognized and registered Endowment, under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short “the Act”). It holds certain items of property, including the premises bearing No.1-8-478, Chikkadapally. The petitioners are in occupation of the ground ﬂoor and ﬁrst ﬂoor. The trustee of the 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent, in O.A.Nos.16 and 24 of 2006. Through a common order, dated 11.4.2007, the 2 nd respondent directed eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners ﬁled Revision Petition Nos.11 and 12 of 2007, before the 1st respondent. Through separate orders, dated 28.8.2008, the 1st respondent dismissed the revisions. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a serious doubt as to the very competence of the trustee, to represent the 4th respondent. It is pleaded that the trustee had made an eﬀort to appropriate the properties for herself. Other grounds are also urged. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners have become encroachers over the property, and respondents 1 and 2 have discussed the matter, at length, before directing their eviction. The petitioners do not claim rights of ownership over the property. Though an attempt is made on behalf of the petitioners, to doubt the competence of the trustee to represent the 4th respondent, their contention cannot be accepted. The very fact that the trustee has invoked the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, would clearly disclose that the 4th respondent is an Endowment, governed by the provisions of the Act, and the trustee cannot claim any right to herself. The 2nd respondent has recorded a categorical ﬁnding that there is no valid lease in favour of the petitioners, and accordingly, directed their eviction. The petitioners are not able to point out any factual or legal error, in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients may be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, submits that the Endowment is hardly left with any income, and the premises are also needed for this immediate purpose. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are granted time, till end of February 2009, on condition that they shall pay rent, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- (one thousand ﬁve hundred) per month, with eﬀect from October 2008, on or before 5th of every month. Arrears of rent, if any, shall be cleared by the petitioners, by end of this month. It is directed that the property shall be utilized only for the purposes mentioned in the trust deed, and no person, including the trustee, shall claim the property as their own. ______________________ 16th September 2008 PAN