HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21828 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is Adilabad Branch of Union Bank of India. Way back in the year 1968, it established branch in the premises owned by Sri Marswadi Panchayat Bhavan, Adilabad-the third respondent herein on rent. Subsequently, the third respondent was taken over by the Endowments department. O.A.No.84 of 1996 was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad-the second respondent herein under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the petitioner has became encroacher and thereby, became liable to be evicted. It was also alleged that there are arrears of rent. The petitioner opposed the O.A. stating that the agreed rents were paid regularly and the arrears, if any, was only on account of the unilateral enhancement of the rent. The second respondent allowed the O.A. through order, dated 24.01.1998. The petitioner filed R.P.No.2 of 1998 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, M.Z-III, Endowments Department, Hyderabad-the first respondent herein. The Revision was dismissed on 09.09.1999. Hence, this writ petition. Sri Vasantharayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the findings recorded by respondents 2 and 1 that there exists arrears of rent is not correct. He further submits that the lease has been extended from time to time, though there are no documents to that effect. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that apart from the fact that the petitioner became encroacher on account of expiry of agreed period, he is also liable to be evicted on account of default in payment of rent. The lease between the petitioner and the third respondent commenced way back in the year 1968. It appears that the rent was enhanced after the third respondent was taken over by the Endowments Department. The record does not disclose that there was any written agreement for that purpose between the petitioner and the third respondent. Proceedings were initiated for eviction of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Act. Even assuming that there is some doubt as to the liability of the petitioner to pay the enhanced rent, the fact remains that beyond 31.12.1995, there was no extension of lease. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the second respondent and dismissal of the R.P. filed against it. Across the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the third respondent submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, negotiations were undertaken for continuance of the lease on enhanced rent and they are at final stage. If that be so, the arrangement agreed to between the parties can, very well, be submitted before the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 89 of the Act. There is no reason to believe that the Commissioner would not treat the interest of the third respondent as paramount consideration. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of : - (a) upholding the order, dated 24.01.1998, passed in O.A.No.84 of 1996 and R.P.No.2 of 1998, dated 09.09.1999; (b) leaving it open to the petitioner and the third respondent to negotiate for further continuance of the lease on agreeable terms and submit the same for approval before the Commissioner; (c) in case, the proposal is submitted, the Commissioner of Endowments shall consider the feasibility of according approval duly protecting the interests of the third respondent; and (d) to enable the parties to negotiate, the eviction of the petitioner is stayed for a period of two months from today and if the proposals agreed to by the petitioner and the third respondent are submitted within a period of two months, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue in the premises of the third respondent under that arrangement, if approved by the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17th June 2010 dr