LAWS(APH)-2005-1-17

POONAMCHAND GANDHI JAIN DHARMASALA HYDERABAD Vs. REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONE OF ENDOWMENTS MULTI ZONE 3 HYDERABAD

Decided On January 24, 2005
POONAMCHAND GANDHI JAIN DHARMASALA, HYDERABAD Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, MULRI ZONE-III, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a religious endowment. One of the items of property held by it is, premises bearing No.3-4-1036, Poonamchand Building, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. One Ajay Kumar Jain, the 4th respondent was the lessee. The petitioner filed OA No.203 of 1998 before the 2nd respondent, for eviction of the 4th respondent. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the 4th respondent sublet the premises to the 3rd respondent without the permission of the petitioner. Through order dated 14-8-2003, the 2nd respondent allowed the O.A., and directed eviction of the 4th respondent under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act (for short 'the Act'). The 4th respondent did not prefer an appeal or revision against it, and the order became final against him.

(2.) When steps were being taken to resume the possession of the premises, on the basis of the order in O.A. No.203 of 1998, the 3rd respondent filed WP No. 19368 of 2003 in this Court, alleging that he is sought to be dispossessed unauthorizedly. The writ petition was disposed of on 19-9- 2003, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, and directing maintenance of status quo for a period of three weeks.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed R.P. No.179 of 2003 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, the 1st respondent, against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in OA.No.203 of 1998. In his order dated 8-6-2004, the 1st respondent took the view that the 3rd respondent is a necessary party to OA No.203 of 1998, and on account of non-joinder of the necessary party, the order dated 14-8-2003 is vitiated. Accordingly, he set aside the order and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal after impleading the 3rd respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition.