( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 79 of 1999, dated 5. 11. 2002 on the file of Principal senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. The appellant herein is the defendant in that suit.

( 2 ) THE parties herein are referred to as tenant and Devasthanam for the sake of convenience.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that O. S. No. 122 of 1997 filed by the devasthanam on the file of the I Additional district Munsif, Tirupathi was transferred to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and the same was numbered as O. S. No. 79 of 1999. In this suit, the Devasthanam pleaded for recovery of vacant possession of A, B and C-schedule properties from the possession of the tenant and also for payment of arrears of rent and damages, till the date of surrender of possession of a, B and C-scheduled properties to the plaintiff-Devasthanam and for costs. The tenant resisted the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and as per the provisions of Section 118 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the Act ) the commissioner, Endowments Department is the specified authority to enquire into the matter, before whom the eviction proceedings of an encroacher have to be initiated by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. It is also seen from the record that the tenant filed O. S. No. 624 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, against devasthanam, seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Item no. 2 of the plaint schedule property. On transfer of the suit to the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, it was renumbered as O. S. No. 193 of 2000. Likewise, he also filed O. S. No. 203 of 1995 against the Devasthanam, seeking similar relief of permanent injunction. But at a later stage, the tenant got amended the plaint and sought for a declaration that he is a permanent lessee. While upholding the objection raised by the defendant, the Senior civil Judge, Tirupathi dismissed all the suits by passing a common order, dated 5. 11. 2002 by holding that all the three suits are not maintainable before the Civil Court and any dispute arising under Section 83 of the Act relating to the properties of Devasthanam have to be adjudicated by the Commissioner, endowments, under Section 118 of the Act. Now surprisingly, the defendant has taken a round about turn and filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree in o. S. No. 203 of 1995 only by contending that the Commissioner, Endowments who is a party to the proceedings of the Trust board, dated 11. 11. 1990 and 31. 3. 1994 cannot exercise quasi-judicial function under section 118 of the Act, since no party can be a Judge in his own case and if the defendant is forced to appear before the commissioner, being the designated officer, he will not get justice and sought for remand of the case to the Trial Court for disposal of the suit on merits. (1) Civil Court s Jurisdiction:

( 4 ) SRI S. Ramachandra Rao, learned senior Counsel for the appellant cited number of decisions to show that when the parties seek the relief, which is not covered by the special enactment, the Civil court only has got jurisdiction to settle the dispute, but not the designated authority. Since I have no quarrel with the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel, I am not specifically adverting to these decisions rendered in this judgment and I would like to proceed with the case on the premise that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. To be more emphatic, I should not be understood that under the special enactment, in all the cases, the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to decide the issues by-passing the designated authority and the issue in question open in the light of the arguments advanced by sri Ramesh Ranganatham, learned Counsel for th