LAWS(TLNG)-2020-1-106

M/S SRIKANTH SELECTIONS Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER

Decided On January 31, 2020
M/S Srikanth Selections Appellant
V/S
ASST COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Telangana Endowment Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No.43 of 2017 dated 24.09.2019 whereby the petitioner was declared as encroacher of the O.A. schedule premises and the respondent is directed to remove the encroachment and handover the vacant physical possession of the schedule premises to the 2nd applicant temple within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) Heard Sri R.K.G. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Endowment for the 1st respondent.

(3.) It is claimed that the petitioner is in possession of a mulgi (shop) bearing No.612 admeasuring 293.15 sq.ft in the 2nd respondent temple under a lease deed dated 13.09.1994 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month, which was extended from time to time on increase of rent and presently the rent being paid is Rs.11,722/- per month. As the things stood, it is claimed that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 17.01.2017 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the mulgi bearing No.612. Being aggrieved by the said notice issued, the petitioner has approached the Telangana Endowments Tribunal by filing O.A. numbered as O.A. No.43 of 2017. The said O.A. filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the 2nd respondent temple authority in issuing the notice seeking eviction of the petitioner and not renewing the lease in respect of mulgi No.612 beyond the period of 31.03.2016, the Endowment Tribunal, by its order dated 24.09.2019, held that mere payment of rent regularly would not give any right to the respondent for his continuation in the O.A. schedule premises without there being any licence issued by the competent authority. Further, the Tribunal having regard to the finding arrived at, regarding the petitioner not having licence issued by the competent authority under Rule 4(1) and 2B of the Rules declared the petitioner to be an encroacher in the O.A. schedule premises and directed the petitioner to be evicted from the second applicant temple therein.