An encroacher, who continues to occupy a property without approval of the competent authority's sanction of lease or license after expiry of the initial lease period, is liable to be evicted under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987.

ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of Andhra Pradesh Endowment Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani in O.A. No. 266 of 2015, dated 09.05.2018. The appellant was directed to be evicted from the property in his occupation holding that he is an encroacher in terms of Section 84(2) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short Act 30/1987).

2. The property concerned to this case is Shop No. 4, which is at building bearing D. No. 1-157, Near Pedda Vanthena, P.P. Road, Undi Village/Mandal, West Godavari District. It shall herein after be referred to as 'the disputed shop'.

3. This shop admittedly belongs to the 1st respondent. This shop is under control and supervision of an Executive Officer, working under the control of the 2nd respondent.

4. The auction relating to lease hold rights was conducted in respect of the disputed shop on 29.10.2007. The appellant became the successful bidder for the lease period from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2010 and that he accepted all the terms and conditions of lease, including to pay an amount of Rs. 900/- towards rent on or before 5th of every succeeding month. After expiry of the lease period, the appellant claimed that he gave a representation to the authorities concerned to extend lease for another period of three years on enhanced rent of 35% above the existing rent, offering to pay Rs. 1215/- per month. He continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property likewise, paying monthly rent at Rs. 1215/-. However the 1st respondent declared the appellant an encroacher and according to the appellant, without considering his representation began to demand him to vacate the premises and also got issued a notice to him on 02.12.2013.

5. The appellant denied the case of the respondents before the Tribunal. He specifically questioned the title of the 1st respondent and contended that the first respondent has no right to seek his eviction from the disputed shop. Denying that he has been a defaulter to pay the lease amounts, he asserted that he has been very regular in paying the rents or lease amounts and that the 1st respondent is issuing the receipts thereon without any protest. He further contended that after receiving the notice from the 1st respondent, he approached the concerned authorities and gave a reply in writing. Thus, questioning the bonafides in the action of the first respondent in filing an application for his eviction before the Tribunal, he sought to dismiss the same.

6. The Endowment Tribunal, basing on the pleadings and other material settled the following issues for trial.

"1. Whether the respondent is an encroacher U/S. 83 of Act 30/1987, if so liable to be evicted?

2. To what relief?"

7. In the course of trial, on behalf of the 1st respondent its Executing Officer was examined as P.W.1. No documents were exhibited on its behalf. Even the appellant did not choose to enter the box nor had let-in evidence oral or documentary.

8. Basing on the material, the Tribunal observed that the appellant is an encroacher in terms of Section 83 of Act 30/1987 and is liable to vacate. Six months time was granted to the appellant subject to paying damages at different rates for different years.

9. It is against this order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant.

10. Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal observed that the request of the appellant could be considered by the authorities for continuation of occupation of the shop in dispute, subject to payment of enhanced rent and in such an event, an opportunity be given to him to continue to be in possession of this property.

11. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for 1st respondent, opposing this contention of the appellant, mainly brought to the notice of this Court that the premises in question was already taken possession of, pursuant to the order and