The court upheld the principle of requiring sufficient evidence to support claimed damages and affirmed the trial Court's decision to award damages at a lower rate based on the lack of evidence provided by the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is plaintiff/Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) in O.S. No. 202 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The respondent herein is defendant in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The vacant site measuring 6’ X 6’ situated in 2nd New Choultry, Tirupati, belonged to the plaintiff/TTD. The defendant was granted license to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. After expiry of license period, the license was not renewed. As per rules, the authorities called for tenders for the said premises to run STD booth for a period of one year by means of publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies. Tenders were opened in the presence of tenderers on 09-02-2001 at 03.15 p.m. One K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was the highest bidder, he having offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards license fee for the plaint schedule premises. After expiry of license period, defendant has no right to run the STD booth in the suit premises. The status of defendant is that of an encroacher as per explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 83 read with Section 118 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. He is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises from 15-12-2000 onwards. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he is an unemployee and a poor person and he has to maintain his family consisting of old aged mother and two children. So, he applied to allot STD booth to him under unemployment scheme. Accordingly, the STD booth was allotted to him on 05-8-1991. The defendant accorded permission to install the said telephone booth at TTD choultry Nos.2 and 3, Tirupati. On 19-10-1991, proceedings were given to the defendant to install telephone booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year and the vacant booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year for the vacant site by measuring 6 X 6 feet. After expiry of the said lease, lease was renewed for the period from 15-12-1992 to 14-12-1993. Later on, the monthly existing rent of Rs.60/- was enhanced to Rs.75/-and issued proceedings on 21-12-1993. The said rent was not enhanced for the period from 15-12-1993 to 14-12-1994. The existing rent of Rs.75/- has enhanced to Rs.150/- per month from 15-12-1994 to 14-12-1995. Again, the existing rent of Rs.150/- was enhanced to Rs.188/- for the period from 15-12-1995 to 14-12-1996. The existing rent of Rs.188/- was enhanced to Rs.294/- from 15-12-1997 to 14-12-1998. Later on, the existing rent of Rs.294/- was enhanced to Rs.368/- from 15-12-1998 to 14-12-1999. Again, the existing rent of Rs.368/- was enhanced to Rs.460/- from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. Thus, the plaintiff has been enhancing the monthly rents from Rs.60/-to Rs.460/- per month periodically. Accordingly, the defendant has been paying the monthly rents to the plaintiff regularly without committing any default in payment of rent by the 5th of every succeeding month. Apart from the said monthly rents, the plaintiff used to collect electrical charges for the plaint schedule telephone booth. On 12-10-2000, he made a requisition to the plaintiff and the same was acknowledged on 16-10-2000 to renew the lease of plaint schedule telephone booth for another 3 years by undertaking to pay the monthly rent by enhancing 25% on the existing rent of Rs.460/-. Whenever he approached the authorities of the plaintiff, they promised that they would send renewal of the lease. The Plaintiff claiming alleged damages of Rs.13,032-99 ps is exorbitant. There is no basis to fix the alleged damages as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. He prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are s