SUBBA REDDY Y Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition primarily on the ground that the lessee from the endowment concerned has ceased to have renewal and thus there is a deemed surrender of the lease by him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously questioned the above said findings. Before, however, we give our reasons why do we not deem it necessary to go into all sorts of the questions the learned Counsel for the appellant is trying to raise in the instant appeal particularly when there is no issue before us that notwithstanding the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the A.P. Tenancy Act shall apply because the lease concerned has been an agricultural lease, we may recapitulate broadly the facts upon which the appellant has laid his claim and filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) The appellant, it is not in dispute, got a lease for a period of six years of a parcel of land. He got a renewal for another six years. He applied for a further renewal. The authorities, however, of the endowment concerned have decided to settle the land by auction. There is some mention that the appellant has participated in the auction but the appellant has disputed this fact and has tried to suggest that since there are others of his name in the village, there is some mistake in identifying him as one of the participants.

(3.) Assuming in favour of the appellant that the A.P. Tenancy Act has application, can he for the purposes of the Tenancy Act claim that he has become a cultivating tenant? The answer is a specific 'No'. Sec. 75 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act reads as follows: