TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS Vs. K GOVINDAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2002 passed in AS.No.51 of 1997 by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1996 passed in O.S. No.87 of 1992 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupathi, the Plaintiff-TTDevasthanams, Tirupathi, represented by its Executive Officer, preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed against one K.Govindaiah, of whom the respondents 2 to 9, herein are legal representatives, for recovery of Rs.5,540.80 towards arrears of damages for use and occupation of plaintiffs Shop Room No.217, situated in Sannidhi Street, Tirumala. The case of the plaintiff is that it permitted Mr. K.Govindaiah to occupy the said room and to carry on business on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- for five years from 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1988, but even after expiry of the term, the defendant failed to surrender the suit shop and, therefore, under Section 83(1) of the A.P. Charitabale and Hindu Religious Insitutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity the Act), he became encroacher. Thus the suit came to be filed.

(3.) The case, as can be gathered from the written statement, of the defendant is that his ancestors have been living by doing petty business in the premises belonging to private owners in the northern row of Sannidhi Street, Tirumala and the plaintiff started negotiating for acquisition of necessary site from the private owners to facilitate free movement of the pilgrims. Since the process of acquisition requires co-operation of lessees of those shops, the plaintiff authorities involved the defendant and other shop owners and induced them to believe and agree to vacate their shop rooms, by offering permanent heritable lease of shop room to be constructed in Sannidhi Street, after road widening. In that process, the plaintiff represented that the newly constructed shops would be leased out to the defendant and other shop owners permanently and with heritable right on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. It is also the defendant's case that the plaintiff would be providing them with temporary alternative accommodation in the premises, until the construction work is completed. Thus, on 27.8.1981 the defendant occupied temporary accommodation by executing written consent letters and on 15.10.1981 he was put in possession of the new shop with permanent and heritable lease requiring him to execute a registered lease deed as per the proceedings of the plaintiff in Roc. No.PO1/2430/RO III/81 dated 16.10.1981, but since the plaintiff had given a go-bye to the mutually agreed terms and conditions of the contract of permanent and heritable lease originally contemplated by way of the proceedings and the proforma enclosed thereto, the defendant did not agree to execute the lease deed as suggested and sent draft lease deed of his own, which the plaintiff did not advert about its acceptance and did not accept the rents sent through demand drafts and money orders. Thus the possession of the defendant is not under a licence but it is in part performance of the contract of permanent heritable lease. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation.