HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 446 OF 2011 DATED 21ST September, 2011 BETWEEN Dasari Srirama Murthy …….Appellant and Sri Muktheswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Muthyalapalli, rep. by its Executive Officer, and ors ……Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 446 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 191 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, W.G.District. He filed the aforesaid suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants in conducting auction of the leasehold rights of the suit schedule property. The trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit observing that as the lease granted in favour of the plaintiff was over, he had no right to interfere with the property belonging to the first defendant-temple and as such he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, (FAC), Narsapur. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18.11.2010, confirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence the second appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that in as much as the defendants have accepted the maktha from the plaintiff every year even after the lapse of lease, the Courts below ought to have held that the possession of the plaintiff is legal and he is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for. He further submits that as the appellant/plaintiff was inducted in the schedule land as a tenant and as the defendants have been accepting the makta even after lapse of lease period, he cannot be said to be an encroacher, and that too, in the absence of any proceedings thereto. The learned Counsel sought to raise substantial question of law-- whether the appellant/plaintiff can be termed as an encroacher having accepted the rental proceeds every year even after lapse of lease period and failing to initiate auction proceedings till the date of filing of the suit. Before the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A. 5. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, but, no documentary evidence was adduced. It is brought on record that pursuant to the auction proceedings initiated by the defendants on 10.7.1971 in respect of the leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property of the temple, the appellant/plaintiff was the highest bidder. The said lease granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff expired after six years. The appellant/plaintiff was paying Rs.560/- per year apart from 60% of gross produce of the product to the first defendant. The authorities of the defendants sough to auction the leasehold rights of the suit schedule property on 11.09.1998. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he had paid the agreed lease amount even for the year 1998-99 and as such he was the statutory tenant. Before the trial Court, the defendants filed written statement stating that the appellant/plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of makhta for the year 1995-96 and denied the payment of maktha for 1998-99. Needless to observe, the leasehold rights would be lapsed after the expiry of lease period. After the lapse of six years lease period, the appellant/plaintiff had not been granted extension of lease. As such, if the appellant/plaintiff continued to be in the possession of the suit property even after lapse of lease period, the said possession is said to be illegal. In as much as the possession after lapse of lease period is not recognized by law, he can be treated as an encroacher within the meaning of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Merely because the appellant/plaintiff was paying the maktha even after lapse of lease period and the same was being accepted by the defendants, under any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that he is a statutory tenant after lapse of the lease period. On the acceptance of the maktha after the lease period, the plaintiff cannot be treated as statutory tenant in as much as he was not declared by law as such. Even as per the explanation given under Section 83 of the Act of 1987, the expression ‘encroacher’ includes a person who continues to remain in possession over the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease. In Venkataramana Vs.Deputy Commissioner (1989 (2) ALT 98) it was observed that the purchaser of usufructuary leasehold rights can be treated as an encroacher on expiry of such lease and can be evicted at any time. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff had no right to continue in possession of the suit property of the first respondent/defendant-temple evenafter expiry of lease and hence he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Both the Courts below rightly considered the evidence on record and held that the tenant (plaintiff/appellant) who continued to be in possession of the property on lease, can be treated as encroacher after the expiry or termination or cancellation. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the second appeal as no question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal warranting interference with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 21ST September, 2011. Msnro