M OBULESH Vs. R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the tenant in respect of the lands in question which belong to the 3rd respondent Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kalyandurg He was inducted into the possession of the lands under a lease deed on 1st April, 1969 It was a lease period of one year. It is his case that he has located the engine. The lease was granted by the Trustee of the Temple However, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (hereinafter referred to as "the commissioner)" vetoed that lease. Therefore the 3rd respondent notified the land for reauction. In order to protect his rights, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar in which he prayed for an injunction restraining respondent No. 3 from holding the reauction and disturbing his possession. In these proceeding interior in junction was granted by the Tahsildar. However, the Tahsildar dismissed the application on merits. During the pendency of those proceedings, respondent No. 3 made an application against the petitioner for evicting him on the allegation that he had been in default of payment of rent. While dismissing the application made by the petitioner on merits, the Tahsildar also made on order evicting the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner appealed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, against that order. The appeal failed and was dismissed.

(2.) It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The first contention which has been raised by Mr. E. Subrahmanyam is that the Commissioner had no authority to veto the lease. Now the lease deed was executed in 1969 and by virtue of the agreement between the parties incorporated therein it was to remain in force from 1st April, 1969 to 31st March, 1970. In order to examine the question whether the Commissioner had the authority to veto the lease, it is necessary to refer to the Anhdra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as "The Religious Institutions Act") Section 70 to which my attention has been Invited, inter alia, provides as follows :

(3.) In the instant case, the Commissioner has vetoed the lease under this Rule. The rent reserved under the present lease is Rs. 1200/-per annum. Therefore, the first condition specified in Rule 10 was satisfied. However, the question which has been raised, is whether Rule 10 continues to be in force by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 109 of the Religious Institutions Act. Under sub-section (2) of section 109 Rule 10 would continue to be in force if it is "not inconsistent with this Act". Therefore, the question which I am required to answer is whether Rule 10 is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Religious Institutions Act. Rule 10 confers upon the Commissioner power to veto any lease whe ther it is for a period or one year pr more. The only condition proper deal is that annual rental reserved under it must be Rs. 500/- or more or its eqivalent in paddy or other produce. Now section 70 of the Religious Institutions Act, 1966, does not require ths sanction of the Government for a lease which is for a period of six years or less. Indeed section 70 provides for prior sanction of the Government and not of the Commissioner. Section 74, which provides for the prior sanction of the Commissioner in respect of certain transactions, excludes leases altogether, Therefore, when sections 70 and 71 are read together, it is clear that so far as lease for a period of six years or less is concerned, neither the prior sanction of the Government nor the prior sanction of the Commissioner is required. As against this position which emerges from a comparative reading of sections 70 and 74 of the Religious Institutions Act, I find that rule 10 made under Section 100 (2) (m) of the repealed Act confers upon the Commissioner power to veto any lease. Sections 70 and 74 indeed, provide for prior sanction to the transactions specified therein They do not confer upon the Commissioner power to veto a lease. However, if sections 70 and 74 which provide for the voidness of certain transactions including leases under certain circumstances are not attracted to the instant case, it is difficult to think that the Commissioner power of veto under Rule 10 still continues to be in force. In my opinion, Rule 10 which provides for veto is inconsistent with sections 70 and 74 of the Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, bv virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 109 of the Religious Institution Act, Rule 10 made under Section 100 (2) (m) of the repealed Act did not continue to be in force after the old Act was repealed. In my opinion, the Commissioner had therefore no power to vto the present lease. Assuming that I am in error in holding that Rule 10 did not continue in force after repea1 of the old Act and that it was applicable to the present transaction when it was entered into, even then the Commissioner had no power to veto the lease. He could exercise his power of vetoing the lease within one month from the date of receipt of the report by him. In the instant case, the lease in question was executed on 1st July 1969 even though it came into effect retrospectivelv from 1st April 1969. There is nothing on record to show when the report in respect of this lease was made by respondent No 3 to the Commissioner. In normal course therefore, I assume that it must have been reported to him immediately. The Commissioner vetoed the lease on 21st October. 1969. that is to say after a period of one month specified in Rule 10. He had no authority to veto It after the expiry of the period of one month On the contrary since he did not veto it within a period of one month specified in Rule 10, the lease was deemed to have been approved by him Therefore, in any view of the matter, the Commissioner in the instant case exercised his power of veto without authority.