1. These two Civil Revision Petitions raise same point of law and hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. CRP No.1620 of 2015 arises out of an order dated 12.02.2015 in IA No.1991 of 2014 in OA No.945 of 2013 pending before the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad and CRP No.1622 of 2015 arises out of an order dated 12.02.2015 in IA No.1990 of 2014 in OA No.944 of 2013 pending before the same Tribunal.

3. The petitioners in these two Civil Revision Petitions are the tenants, whereas the respondents are the landlords. The respondents filed the Original Applications seeking a declaration that the petitioners are encroachers and sought their eviction from the petition schedule premises.

4. The petitioners herein filed their counters to the said applications and also filed the interlocutory applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying the Tribunal to reject the Original Applications for their eviction from the petition schedule premises. In support of their applications they have stated that they are not encroachers but tenants for more than 60 years and no cause of action arose between them and respondents. A counter was filed by the original applicants stating that the Original Applications were filed indicating the proper cause of action and the petitioners herein come under the definition of ‘encroachers’ as defined under explanation to Section 83(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

5. The Tribunal considered the applications, the counter filed by the parties and held that in view of the details given in the Original Applications, the present applications filed by the tenants cannot be entertained. Accordingly it dismissed the applications by separate orders dated 12.02.2015. Challenging the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

6. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in dismissing the applications are as follows.

“It is clear from the above averments that the material facts as stated supra attracting the provision of law laid down under Section 83(1) are mentioned in the Original Application. The remaining submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel will not in any way affect the result of the application. However, I am considering those submissions. There is no dispute that the date of encroachment or the date of knowledge as to the encroachment is not mentioned in the Original Application. As per Order 7 Rule 11(a), the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action, but the said rule does not contain any words to indicate that the plaint shall be rejected on the ground that the date as to when the cause of action arose is not mentioned in the plaint/OA. As per Order 7 Rule 1(e) CPC, the fact “when the cause of action arose” is to be mentioned in the plaint. That fact is to be mentioned as the law of limitation is applicable in suits, but, in the Original Application filed U/s.83 of the Act, 30/87, the above fact is immaterial as the law of limitation is not applicable. Apart from it, the rules framed under the Act, 30/87, do not contain any words to indicate that the above fact is to be mentioned in the OA. Rule 6(2) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal Rules 2010 does not say that the Original Application shall state when the cause of action arose like in the plaint. The 2nd applicant in the Original Application, who is the Single Trustee-cum-Founder Family Member and who is shown as the 2nd respondent in the interlocutory application, filed counter in the interlocutory application. I am unable to appreciate the argument of the petitioner’s counsel on the above aspect. The counsel for the petitioner did not make any submission contra to the submission made by the respondents’ counsel touching the provision of law laid down U/s.15 of the Act, 30/87. However, it is not a ground to reject the Original