A person who continues to occupy the temple property even after the expiry of the lease period is an encroacher and liable to be evicted.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short 'Act 30 of 1987'), against the decree and order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani, Guntur District (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.637 of 2016.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondent as they arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner i.e., Sri Kota Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Fort Road, Kurnool Town & District, is a temple governed under Section 1 of the Act 30 of 1987. The 2nd petitioner-temple is the absolute owner of residential vacant land situated around the temple in Sy.No.35/5/C1A1, in which some small extent of 'kutcha houses' were constructed as detailed in the schedule for maintenance of the temple i.e., through the income derived there from. Public auction was conducted by the temple on 15.11.2012 for a period of three years and the respondent also participated in the auction and became the highest bidder. In pursuance of the bid, the respondent took possession of the property and paid the rents. The said lease was expired by 31.10.2015 and the said lease is not extended further. In spite of lapse of lease period, the respondent has been continuing in the schedule premises and she is not vacating the same even after repeated requests and demand made by the 2nd petitioner. Hence, the 2nd petitioner constrained to file application for eviction of the respondent.

4. The respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that, initially the schedule premises is a vacant site and it was allotted to him in the year 1993. He raised constructions by spending huge amounts and he has been continuing till today with his family by paying the rents regularly. The respondent has no other source of income for his livelihood. The 2nd petitioner, under the guise of development, requesting the respondent to vacate the premises, having allowed him to enjoy the property for more than seven decades and as such, he contends that requirement of the schedule property itself is illegal. It is further stated that without issuing any notice, straightaway filed the application before the Tribunal by the 2nd petitioner, which is illegal and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. To substantiate their contentions, on behalf of the petitioners, the single trustee of the temple, was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as RW.1, but no documents were marked on his behalf.

6. The Tribunal after hearing both parties in detail and on careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the application on 28.11.2022, directing the respondent to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the 2nd petitioner-temple within one month and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month towards damages for use and occupation of the temple property from the date of decree, till the date of delivery of the property, to the 2nd petitioner-temple. The Tribunal also directed the Station House Officer concern, to provide necessary police assistance to implement the order, on request of the petitioners, in the event of failure of respondent in complying with the order and decree.

7. Aggrieved by the said order and decree of the Tribunal, the respondent filed the present appeal.

8. Heard Sri T. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, who is the respondent before the Tribunal, and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for Endowments representing the respondents, who are the petitioners before the Tribunal and perused the material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-res