2006 Supreme(AP) 1506

2007 (2) ALD 188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V. ESWARAIAH, J.
Tirumala Educational Trust, Tirumala Hills Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi -Respondent
AS No.160 of 1997
Decided on: 12th December, 2006
Advocates appeared : B. v: Subbaiah, Advocate for the Appellant; M. Adinarayana Raju, Advocate for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act – Rule 19, Section 29, 26 - Schedule Property - Permanent Injunction - Suit O.S. filed seeking declaration that plaintiff trust is entitled at its option to get successive renewals of the lease in respect of the plaint schedule property successively for period of six years each from the defendant and for consequential permanent injunction - Suit has been dismissed by judgment and decree and aggrieved by the same the plaintiff trust preferred this appeal - plaintiff is an educational trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to cater to the educational needs of the children of the permanent population and the trust commenced kindergarten section of the school English Medium School in temporary building erected on the site surrounding donated since deceased - plaintiff trust also commenced a primary school with Telugu as medium of instruction made available to the trust initially on nominal rent - plaintiff trust commenced the said schools with the consent of the defendant and duly obtaining the necessary recognition etc. from the Education Department. view to construct permanent buildings for the school the plaintiff trust applied to the defendant for grant of 99 years lease of its site - West of the aforementioned site donated - view of the limitation imposed by the statute upon the power of the defendant in the matter of alienations by way of lease etc., the defendant instead offered to grant lease of the said site of 27 cents for 6 years, subject to option in favour of the plaintiff trust for further extension of lease for further periods of 6 years - Board of Trustees of defendant passed a resolution to that effect - Accordingly, the defendant obtained necessary permission of the Endowment Commissioner and the parties thereunto entered into a bilateral transaction of lease for the said 27 cents by the registered lease deed for 6 years, commencing on an annual rent – Held I am of the opinion that the plaintiff trust is not entitled for successive renewals each time for a period of 6 years and the recommendation of the defendant agreeing to grant long lease for successive years each time for a period of 6 years for the total period of 99 years is illegal and, however, the defendant recommendation to the Government for its decision to fix the period of lease was not at all decided. However, at the relevant point of time there is a specific prohibition in law for grant of long leases for more than 5 years. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in view of the law laid down in various decisions by this Court and the Apex Court with regard to the contention of the plaintiff trust for grant of long lease and for successive renewals each for a period of 6 years and with regard to promissory estoppel as there cannot be any estoppel against a statute and as the statute clearly prohibits grant of long lease and the suit filed by the plaintiff trust was rightly dismissed - would like to observe that admittedly TTD Board permitted the plaintiff trust to construct huge buildings, compound wall; permitted to transport the building material and also granted necessary permissions and sanctions from time to time and exempted payment of property tax, with a view to provide education to the children of the permanent residents and also the employees of the TTD and the evidence also goes to show that the school is being run without any complaints and with appreciation from one and all, therefore, there is every need and necessity for continuous running of the school by the defendant with qualified staff by taking over the management of the school, as intended by it - Evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant goes to show that the children of TTD employees and the children of permanent residents are studying in the school run by the plaintiff trust including the children of D.W.1, whose son and daughter studied in the said school and in view of the fact that there is great demand to study in the educational institutions run by the plaintiff trust in spite of other educational Institutions run by the TTD - Appeal suit is accordingly dismissed