IMPORTANT POINT
Tenants cannot assert adverse possession if they acknowledge ownership and pay rent, as per the interpretation of Section 83 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the Judgment (Award) dated 31.07.2012 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) in O.A.No.329 of 2010 (old No.80 of 2007 of D.C., Hyderabad) passed by the learned A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as “Tribunal”), the Opposite Parties filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the first applicant i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad has forwarded the proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred to as “the Act” for brevity) in RC No.C/2495/20096 dated 13.03.2007 submitted by the second applicant i.e., Executive Officer of Sri Ganesh Temple, Station Road, Secunderabad against the sole respondent, who is alleged to have encroached house bearing No.9-3-74, 75 and 76 situated in Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, which is alleged to be belonging to second applicant. In the said proposal, it was submitted that the respondents are continuing in the schedule property after expiry of the lease period obtained by respondent No.1 (since died) without any right and without renewal or extension of lease. The respondent did not even consider the request for extending of lease for two more years from 01.09.1998 to 31.07.2000 with 30% enhancement of rent. The respondents are squatting there on converting the residential building into commercial shops and giving the same on sub lease despite demands to vacate and without even paying any amounts to the second applicant temple for use and occupation. The property is located in a busy locality and it will fetch huge amount if given on lease and thereby requested to take necessary action for an order removing the encroachment.

4. The respondent filed counter and mainly contended that originally the grandfather of the respondent namely Yellaiah was inducted into the petition schedule premises about 70 years back as tenant orally and he was prompt in payment of rents to the temple. The grandfather of the respondent continued as tenant till his death about 40 years back and thereafter the father of the respondent by name Gandaiah continued as tenant of the schedule premises and after his death, the respondent came into possession and paid rents regularly to the temple authorities. The tenancy is oral and the rents were enhancing from time to time. The respondent replied to the notices issued by the second applicant in the year 2005 but he did not receive the notice dated 25.06.2006 and no notice is affixed on his house door, thus, the OA is not maintainable as no lease termination notice was given before filing the OA. The respondent with the oral permission of the then temple authorities extended the portion and he constructed mulgi on the foot path but not in the petition schedule premises. The schedule premises is situated near Masjid opposite to the temple and it is not attached to the temple. The respondent alone got repaired the premises as and when it is required with his own funds. The respondent got two physically handicapped children and he is junior artist with meager income residing in the petition schedule premises and if he is evicted, he will be put to irreparable loss and his family will be on roads and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During the pendency of the case, the sole respondent passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 5 vide orders dated 03.09.2010.

6. During the enquiry, PWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the applicants and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and on the other hand, the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has allow