B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in the second appeal would be whether the appellants herein who were temporarily accommodated in the rooms of the newly constructed Choultries of Tirumaja Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirumala meant for providing accommodation to pilgrims, for a period of three months with rent free facility, and who subsequently refused to vacate the said rooms after the expiry of the said period, can be termed as encroachers as defined in Explanation (ii) to Section 80 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and whether the procedure contemplated under section 83 of the Act has to be followed for evicting them from the rooms under their occupation.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that to meet, the heavy rush of pilgrims on the up-hills, the respondent-Devasthanam has drawn a Master Plan for the development of the area and for maintenance of good sanitation, so that large number of pilgrims visiting the temple may not be affected with epidemics. As per the master plan, they started construction of master drain passing through the lane where buildings bearing Nos. 5/48 and 5/47 in which the appellants were residing as tenants, are located. During excavation of soil, a big landslip seemed to have occurred posing threat to the adjacent buildings. In those circumstances, the respondent devasthanam while initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the buildings on payment of compensation to the displaced persons, agreed to provide accommodation to the tenants for a period of three months on rent free basis with an understanding that these persons have to find out alternative accommodations in the meantime. To that effect the respondents issued proceedings in ROC. No. PO/1/1149/ AEO/p-TML/93, dated 18-8-1993. Though the period of three months was over, the appellants did not vacate the premises and perhaps on their request the respondents have not taken any coercive action to get the appellants vacated from the premises.

( 3 ) WHILE things stood thus, on one fine day all the appellants joined together and filed OS No. 560 of 1994 on the file of the I-Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi seeking permanent, injunction restraining the respondent-devasthanam from evicting them from the suit schedule premises. The stand taken by the appellants in the said suit was that the respondent devasthanam promised that they would allow them to stay in the said rooms by issuing separate proceedings or they would provide alternative accommodation at some convenient place for their residence and for their business purpose also, but the respondents having failed to fulfill their promise in spite of repeated requests made by them, made an attempt to evict them from the rooms at about 10 a. m. , on 23-8-1994. The appellants obtained temporary injunction in the said suit against the respondents from evicting them from the premises,

( 4 ) THE respondents in their written statement having given Factual background under which the appellants were inducted into the rooms, categorically denied all the other allegations including the one that they tried to dispossess the appellants forcibly on 23- 8-1994. They have also taken a plea that as the appellants are residing in separate rooms, the cause of action for each of the appellants being different and distinct one, no single suit is maintainable in law. But unfortunately the Munsif Court failed to frame an issue whether a single suit by the persons occupying different premises is maintainable in law. The Court below simply framed an issue whether the appellants are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court, on behalf of the appellants two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents only one witness as DW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

( 6 ) T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document