The appellant-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2002 passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1999 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, preferred this appeal.

The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the sole defendant in the suit. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience.

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,98,000/-with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till realisation being the arrears of damages for use and occupation of plaint schedule properties by the defendant from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998 at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month and for directing the defendant to pay future damages till the date of taking possession of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule building bearing Door No.11-1-220, Gandhi road, Tirupati. The plaint schedule property was leased out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,331/-and the lease was extended from time to time, lastly from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1990. After expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff issued a notification to auction the leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property in public auction on 20.04.1990. Questioning the proceedings of the plaintiff dated 11.04.1990 proposing to auction the leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property, the defendant filed Writ Petition No.5345 of 1990 and also sought stay of all further proceedings in WPMP No.6840 of 1990. It appears that no stay was granted by this Court. However, the said writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court on 11.07.1997. Challenging the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the defendant preferred an appeal in W.A. No.876 of 1997. However, the same was dismissed at the admission stage itself. Then, the defendant filed O.S. No.732 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for declaration that he is entitled to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and its subordinates and also sought temporary injunction in I.A. No.1434 of 1997. It appears that the said petition was dismissed with costs on 03.12.1997 and the defendant was also unsuccessful in CMA No.40 of 1997 before the appellate Court i.e., III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and the said CMA was dismissed with costs on 06.02.1998. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the lease period expired by 31.03.1990 and since the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the status of the defendant is only an encroacher and, therefore, he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.04.1990 onwards. It is also the case of the plaintiff that similar buildings are fetching monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.5,500/- per month from 01.04.1990. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the sealed tenders were invited on 19.11.1998 to grant licence up to 31.03.2000 and one K. Nagaraj offered highest amount of Rs.5,499/- towards licence fees, but the plaintiff could not finalise the transaction, since the defendant did not deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, after adjusting the amount of Rs.51,909/- paid by the defendant, claimed Rs.1,98,000/- towards arrears of damages for use and occupation from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998 @ Rs.5,500/- per month.

The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff contending that the defendant is only a tenant by holding over and he cannot be termed as an encroacher under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It is also the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was demandin