Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20341
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Chinthabathuni Veeraiah [died] – Appellant
Versus
Sri Seetharamanjaneeya Swamy Vari Devasthanam – Respondent
CRP 3873/2010
VENKATESWARLU POSANI, N MOHAN KRISHNA
The Tenancy Act does not apply to lands owned by religious institutions, rendering related tenancy cases not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 - Section 13(A) - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Jurisdiction of Tenancy Tribunal - The temple, as a religious institution, is exempt from the provisions of the Tenancy Act, rendering the tenancy case filed by the respondent not maintainable. (Paras 11, 14, 16)
(B) Jurisdictional Authority - The appellate court's findings regarding the authority to entertain tenancy cases under the Tenancy Act were determined to be without jurisdiction. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner temple sought eviction of the tenant for non-payment of maktha, but the lower tribunal dismissed the petition for lack of evidence of default. The appellate tribunal reversed this, but the revision court found the case not maintainable under the Tenancy Act due to the temple's classification as a religious institution.
Findings of Court:
The tenancy case initiated by the respondent temple is not maintainable under the A.P. Tenancy Act as per the provisions of the Endowments Act.
Issues: Whether the temple is a Religious and Charitable Institution, and if the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tenancy Act does not apply to lands owned by religious institutions, and thus, the tenancy case was not maintainable.
Result: Revision petition allowed.
::ORDER::
The respondents (tenants) in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed the above revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed in A.T.A.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Special Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur in reversing the order dated 15.09.2009 in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006.
2. Heard Sri M.Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Posani. None appeared for the respondent.
3. Sri Seetharamanjaneeya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, represented by its Managing Trustee-Guntur respondent herein filed A.T.C.No.25 of 2006 under Section 13(A) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 seeking eviction of 1st respondent. Pending A.T.C., the 1st respondent died and respondents 2 and 3 were added by an order dated 06.08.2009 in I.A.No.222 of 2009.
4. The case of the petitioner in A.T.C.No.25 of 2006, in brief, is that the petitioner temple has an extent of Ac.13.08 cents in different demarcations. The 1st respondent is the tenant of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in D.No.908 and 911/1 and 2. The agreement is oral. The agreed maktha is 12 ½ bags of paddy per acre. The payment of maktha in cash. Whenever the maktha is paid, the petitioner temple used to issue receipts. The 1st respondent has been cultivating the land for more than 15 years and is not regular in paying the maktha. The 1st respondent paid the maktha up to the year 2003-2004 and failed to pay the maktha despite repeated demands. A legal notice, dated 07.07.2006 was issued to the 1st respondent demanding to pay the maktha for the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The 1st respondent acknowledged the notice and issued a reply with false conditions.
5. The 1st respondent filed a counter. It was contended, inter-alia, that the Managing Trustee leased out the temple land to his forefathers and after their death respondent came into possession of the petition schedule property and has been cultivating the land. The respondent paid the maktha for the years 2004-2005 and there is no default. The person who signed the petition has no right to sign it. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the A.T.C.
6. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
7. The Lower Tribunal held that P.W.1 is not the Trustee of the temple and failed to prove nonpayment of the maktha by the respondent. The lower Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the default on the part of the respondent and eventually dismissed the petition by an order dated 15.09.2009.
8. Against the said order the temple represented by its Managing Trustee filed A.T.A.No.17 of 2009. The appellate authority concluded that the temple is a private endowment and hence the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would be applicable. The appellate authority also holds that P.W.1 is competent to sign the petition. The appellate court recorded the finding that 1st respondent failed to pay the maktha for the agricultural years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The appellate Court allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the respondents from the petition scheduled properties within three months from the date of judgment.
9. The revision was admitted on 04.02.2011 and an interim stay was granted in C.R.P.(MP).No.5175 of 2010. The above revision was listed on several occasions for hearing. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent.
10. Sri M.Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner temple is a public institution and hence provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would not apply. Learned counsel would also contend that by amendment to Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, by adding clause F, with effect from 26.11.2022 the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 would
