N P NAGARAJA Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of Second Appeals, the facts and questions of law that arise for consideration are identical. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The appellants herein were having shops in Sadhuram Mutt, at Putakullamita area of Tirumala. The land, on which the structures were existing, was owned by Sri Hathiramjee Mutt. Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams (TTD), the respondent herein prepared a plan for construction of Que Complex in that area. Though acquisition of the land did not pose any problem, the appellants, who were having their business establishments over the super structures, offered resistance. After undertaking negotiations, the respondent has agreed to provide accommodation to the appellants and other effected persons for their shops in the premises constructed by it, at a different place on the hills. Accordingly, the appellants vacated the premises under their occupation and were inducted into the possession of the new ones', as the lessees.

(2.) Individual agreements of lease were executed on 07-09-1976. The salient features of the agreements are that, a) the lease shall be for a period of 25 years on payment of rent of Rs. 28/- per month, b) if the conditions of lease are violated in any manner, the respondent shall have the right to determine the lease, c) if the monthly rental amount is regularly paid, for a period of 25 years, the respondent shall be under obligation to sell the respective premises to the appellants without any further consideration, and d) it shall be open to the appellants to pay lump sum of the future rents and all other amounts and to make a request to the respondent to execute the sale deed in their favour. The conditions, which the appellants were to comply with, are incorporated in Clause (12) of the agreement.

(3.) The respondent served notices dated 03-04-1998 upon the appellants, calling upon them to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was mentioned that the lease or sale of the properties held by a Hindu Charitable Institution, is invalid, unless such lease or sale was effected with prior permission of the Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), and that such a permission did not exist in their cases. On receipt of the notices, the appellants filed suits, being O.S. No. 908 of 1998 and batch, in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for a decree, in the form of direction to the respondent to execute regular conveyance deeds in their favour, and in default, the documents be executed by the Court itself. The relief of perpetual injunction against the respondent was also prayed for. In their plaints, which are similar, they stated that it is the obligation of the respondent to obtain permission from the Commissioner of Endowments, and that as a matter of fact, the Commissioner was Ex-officio Member of the Board, which passed resolution, that paved the way for execution of the lease deeds. They pleaded that the respondent is estopped from resiling from the terms of the lease deeds, and that the documents executed on 07-09-1976 are in fact, agreements of sale. The appellants have also pleaded that they are ready and willing to pay the future monthly rents from 13-08-1998 to 12-08-2001, in lump sum, and that the respondent is under obligation to execute the sale deeds.