Y RAMA RAO Vs. VARAHALAKSHMI NARASIMHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM SIMHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Endowments and Mr. Adinarayana Raju for the temple.

(2.) All the Counsels represent to dispose of the main writ petition.

(3.) The undisputed facts in the writ petition are, that the petitioner was the lessee of the 1st respondent for the canteen situate on the uphills, for a period of three years from 16-3-1993 on a lease amount of Rs. 1,225/- p.m. Later, the canteen was shifted to a better location known as Manchukondavari Building and the petitioner was allotted a mulgi in the said building from 1-6-1996 on an enhanced rent in lieu of the earlier canteen premises. The lease which was originally executed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent expired on 31-8-1996. The period of lease was not extended. Prior to the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner approached the authorities i.e., the 1st respondent stating that in the circumstances as there was change of premises during the existence of lease, he has already sufferred loss and as such, his case may be considered under Rule 3 (1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Rules. It is submitted that though the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made by the 1st respondent and sent to the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority under the Act, for sanction of renewal of lease to the petitioner; but the 2nd respondent did not approve the proposal of the 1st respondent for extension of the lease of the petitioner, by his order dated 29-5-1997.