( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed by the sri Manasa Trust, Vijayanagaram being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge dated 28-1-1997 made in W. P. No. 8506 of 1995.

( 2 ) THE above writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein praying for a mandamus restraining the appellant herein and the Commissioner of Endowments from dispossessing him from the schedule lands except by due course of law as provided in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy act, 1956 (for short Tenancy Act ) and for a consequential direction to the appellant herein not to hold any auction of the lease hold rights of the petition schedule lands.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in a. Hqnuma Reddy and others v. Pushpagiri mutt (1970 A. P. High Court Notes 30 (D. B.)), sanadhi Narayana v. State of A. P. (1990 (1) alt 237 (D. B.)), Rimmalapudi Ramachandra rao Chowdury v. Sri Venugopalaswamywari temple (W. P. No. 15925/88 dated 24-9-1996) and Nalli Sanyasi Naidu and another v. Maharaj Alka Narayana Society (W. P. No. 8640/89 dated 20-12-1996), wherein it was held that the provisions of Andhra pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the act ) have no overriding effect, allowed the writ petition as prayed for. Hence this writ appeal by the aggrieved 2nd respondent Trust.

( 4 ) SRI K. G. K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of andhra Pradesh and others v. Nallamilli Rami reddi and others would contend that the provisions of the Tenancy Act have no application to the tenancies which fall under the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel would point out that the view taken by the Benches of this Court in the aforementioned decisions is no longer good law in the light of the above judgment of the supreme Court. The learned Counsel further contend that the writ petitioner cannot be regarded as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of that term under section 2 (c) of the Tenancy Act.

( 5 ) SRI D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-tenant contended that the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant are ex facie untenable and on the other hand, even the Apex Court in the very decision on which the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance, has made it very clear that the provisions of sections 8 to 16 of the Tenancy Act do apply to lease created in respect of lands which fall under the purview of the Act. In that view of the matter, since admittedly the appellant did not take any steps to terminate the tenancy by the mode prescribed under section 13 of the Tenancy Act, by an indirect way, the appellant cannot be permitted to dispossess the writ petitioner from the petition schedule lands by auctioning the leasehold rights. Therefore, the proposed action on the part of the Appellant-Trust to auction the leasehold rights without terminating the tenancy created in favour of the writ petitioner is ex facie illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 10 (2) and 13 (1) of the Tenancy Act. The learned counsel also contended that the lease of the land in favour of the writ petitioner only for a period of three years was also illegal on the part of the Appellant-Trust, because the appellant-trust having decided to lease the land to the writ petitioner ought to have granted the lease for a period of six years as mandated by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act.

( 6 ) IN the premise of these rival contentions a short question that arises for decision is as to whether the proposed action of the Appellant-Trust to auction the leasehold rights of the subject land is in accordance with law.

( 7 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that the provisions of Sections 8 to 16 of the Tenancy act do apply to the tenancies of the lands, which come under the purview of the Act. This position is made explicitly clear by the supreme Court in Nallamilli Kami Reddi s