SURENDRA BABU PATRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the order Annexure -3 by which the Commissioner of Endowments confirmed the order passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in an application filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. By that application O.A. No. 3 of 2001. the Interim Managing Trustee representing the deity Shri Laxminarayan Mahaprabhu. sought eviction of the petitioners, who claim to be permanent tenants in respect of the rooms occupied by them. According to the Interim Managing Trustee, the petitioner, herein were not in legal occupation and that they were not paying any rent even though they claim to be tenants and that the application was liable to be allowed and the petitioners herein evicted. The petitioners herein resisted that application contending inter alia that the leases were granted to them in the year 1962 by the then Trustee, the tenancies in their favour were permanent tenancies, that though they tendered the rent, the Interim Managing Trustee had refused to receive the same, that they were not in default and that the application under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act was not maintainable.

(2.) THE Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments noticed that the claim was permanent tenancy as granted by the prior hereditary Trustee. He found that the grant of leases of that nature even if the case is true, without sanction under Section 19 of the Act, made the leases void, that the occupation of the petitioner herein was unauthorised and they could be evicted by way of a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments also found that there has been no proper tendering of rent by the petitioners herein. Thus the Additional Assistant Commissioner allowed the application. In revision, the revisional authority agreed with the conclusion of the original authority and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. It is that order that is challenged before us in this writ petition.

(3.) IT is clear from the pleadings of the petitioners, that according to them, they were put in possession by the then hereditary Trustee as permanent tenants. In fact, their case indicates that they were permitted to put up constructions at their cost. Of course, there is no material to support that claim. That aspect was also not argued before us. The only case urged was that they were tenants of the rooms as let in by the then hereditary Trustee and that the leases were permanent leases. If the leases that are claimed by the petitioners herein are permanent leases, they are clearly hit by Section 19 of the Act which was introduced in the year 1954. For, the leases that were allegedly granted were granted in the year 1962, without obtaining any sanction from the Commissioner on the ground that the grant of such leases was necessary or beneficial to the institution. Therefore, even if the case of the petitioners were to be accepted, the leases in their favour were void for non compliance of Section 19 of the Act. Going by the explanation to Section 68 (1) of the Act, it is clear that a person claiming on the basis of a transaction contrary to Section 19(1) of the Act, cannot be regarded as a person claiming in good faith within the meaning of that Section. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act. entitling the concerned authority, the Additional Assistant Commissioner, to put the Trustee in possession, is clearly applicable in the case on hand. Therefore, the argument that the Additional Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to act under Section 68 of the Act has no force. We find that the power was rigktly exeqcised by the Additional 'Assistaot Commissioner, 'especianly since the transactions as pleaded by the petjtioners' herein uere void and were incapable of aonferrilg any rkght on uhem.