V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is coming up for disposal afresh in view of the orders of remand of the Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal no. 2382/88.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises namely ground floor of the building bearing H No 1-6-27 Park Lane Secunderabad for arrears of rent and also for damages for use and occupation The suit premises being an endowed property governed by the provisions of the A P Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act 1966 (hereinafter called "the Act") is exempt from the provisions of the A P buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control act 1960. The father of the respondent- defendant was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant on monthly rent of rs. 34-28 After his death the defendant is continuing in possession on the same terms and conditions but right from the beginning he was not regular in payment of the rent. In view of the wilful defaults and irregular payments a lawyer s notice was issued on 11-5-77 calling upon the defendant to pay the entire arrears within 7 days and also to vacate the premises. Oa 20-5-79 the defendant sent a reply with false allegations and though expressed his willingness to pay the rents he did not do so. On 22-5-1979 therefore the plaintiff gave another notice to the defendant to pay the entire arrears of rent. Inspite of this the defendant- tenant did not choose to make any payment Finally on 20-8-1979 a fresh lawyer s notice was issued terminating the tenancy and directing the defendant to vacate the promises by the end of October 1979. It was also stated that incase he fails to vacate the premises by that date his possession would be deemed to be that of a tresspasser and would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs 250/-per month. The defendant was also called upon to pay the entire arrears As he did not comply with the notice the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 1713-80 with interest at 9% per annum for recovery of possession of the suit premises and for future damages at Rs 220/-per month and for costs,

( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement alleging that the suit premises is an endowed property and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession as per the pro visions of the Endowments Act. The defendant pleaded that he was sending rent to the plaintiff whenever the Bill Collector looking after collection of rents failed to collect the rent for thj plaintiff institution and therefore it is false to allege that the defendant was irregular in payment of rents. It is also alleged that no Trust board as contemplated by the Endowments act is constituted and therefore Mr. Vrindavanlal who signed the plaint styling himself as the Managing Trustee is not competent to represent the plaintiff temple and consequently the suit itself is bad and liable to be dismissed. It is also denied that the premises is capable of yielding rs 250/- per month. The defendant also denied that he was to pay arrears of rent of Rs 1713-98.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff examined one heerachand as P W-1 and filed Exs A-1 to A-3 while the defendant examined himself as D. W-1,

( 5 ) THE trial court after framing the relevant issues including those in respect of arrears of rent and for future damages considered the entire evidence and decreed the suit as prayed for. Against that judgment and decree the defendant filed an appeal. The lower appellate court on a reappraisal of the entire evidence found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession, arrears of rent and future damages. However it held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal which was once disposed of on april 16, 1987. However on remand bv the Supreme Court this is being disposed of afresh.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit filed was not simply for r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document