SHAIK MEERASAHEB Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the decision No.254/70 Judl. dated 19-12-70 made In O. A. No. 102/70 by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, and the order in R. P. No. 6 of 1971 dated 9- 12-1971 of the Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department confrming the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the eviction of the petitioner from a site belonging to Sri Ksheera Ramallngeswara swami temple Palacole and quash the said orders.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: The petl tioner and his father were carrying on business for several years as traders In palacole, West Godavari District. The petitioner was occupying a pial' on the northern side of Rajagopuram of the temple of Sri Ksheera Ramallngeswaraswami bearing Door No. 7/1-4 and was selling coconuts, fruits, flowers; betel leaves etc. to the pilgrims who visit the temple. The petitioner's father also was carrying en the same business till he died. The petitioner's father had taken the said shop on lease from the temple authorities originally on a monthly rental of Rs. 2/-, The rental was enhanced from time to time and finally it was Increased to Rs. 28/-. per month. In the year 1952, the Executive Officer of the temple filed a petition, H. R. C. No. 28/52 under Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act in the ccurt of the House Rent Controller, Narasspur for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent, buc that was dismissed for default. The petitioner was subsequently paying rents to the temple authorities who were accepting the same and issuing receipts. A written lease was expcuted between the temple authorities and the petitioner for the year 1959-60. Though there was no written lease thereafter, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the premises and was paying rents to the temple authorities v,ho were accepting the same. In October, 1969 the temple authorities refused to receive the rents. The Petitioner then filed a petition, A.B.O.P. No, 56 of 1970 in the court of the Principal District Munsif-cum-House Rent Controller, Narasapur to direct the temple authorities to receive the rents from the petitioner and he also deposited the rents accrued till then in the said court. While so, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department issued a notice O. A No. 102 of 1970 A.4/Jdl. dated 21-5-1970 under Section 75 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (NO. 17 of 1966) (hereinafter called 'the Act') stating that the petitioner hid encroached upon the front piat of the Rajagopuram of the temple and oiling upon him to show cause way he should not be evicted from the satd promises. The petitioner filed his representations on 15-6 1970 stating that he was not an encroacher and he was in lawful occupation of the said premises as a lessee of the temple and that the provisions of Section 75 were not applicable and could not be Invoked by the Deputy Commissioner. He also filed another application on 16-10-1970 praying that the question of jurisdiction be decided first, but that petition was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26-10-1970. The petitioner thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 525/70 in this Court challenging the validity of the notlce given by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 75 (2) of the Act. The said writ petition was dismissed stating that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedies available under the Act and that there was no warrant for exercising the discretion under Art. 226 of the Constitution at that stage-An appeal preferred against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition was also rejected. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner. The parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence and the Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 19 12-1970, allowed the petition holding that the petitioner had encroached on the temple site and that he should remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the same to the trustee of the temple within one month from the date of the said order.

(3.) Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision peti tion under Section 82 of the Act to the Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department in R.P. No. 6/71 and the Joint Commissioner rejected the revision petition. It is these orders that are now challenged in this writ Petition.