Dismissed

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D v. Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013CRP/2696/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner landlord revises judgment evicting tenant from charitable temple land. Court dismisses revision, ruling Tenancy Act inapplicable and Endowments Act governs. Landlord to auction leasehold rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to participate in auction of leasehold rights; obligation to vacate if another person emerges as highest bidder; recovery of arrears allowed per law.

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2696 of 1997

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

Petitioner is a tenant in respect of the lands held by Sri Krishnarayudu Devastanam, K.Pedapudi, East Godavari District, the 1^st respondent herein. A.T.C.No.25 of 1992 was filed by the Devasthanam before the Court of the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Amalapuram for eviction of the petitioner. The trial Court passed an order, dated 02.11.1992, directing eviction. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed A.T.A.No.92 of 1992 before the District Judge, East Godavari. The appeal was dismissed through judgment, dated 17.04.1997. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.

¶6

The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found that the petitioner deserves to be evicted and that the respondent is in possession of the land. Though several contentions are advanced on merits, an important development has taken place during the pendency of the revision.

¶7

There was some controversy as to whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’) would apply to the lands held by the religious and charitable institutions in the state of Andhra Pradesh. I n State of A.P. Vs. Nallamilli Rami Redd i^[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such lands are not covered by the provisions of the Act.

¶8

In that view of the matter, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is directed that the tenancy between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent shall be governed by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Since the tenancy had expired, it shall be open to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh auction of the leasehold rights in respect of the land in question. It shall be open to the petitioner to participate therein. If the petitioner emerges as highest bidder in the auction so conducted, fresh lease shall be executed. If, on the other hand, any other person emerges as higher bidder, the petitioner shall be under obligation to vacate the same. It shall be open to the 1^st respondent to recover the arrears of rent, if any, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶11

______________________ S.V. BHATT,J

¶12

Dt:21.06.2013 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl

¶13

[1] ((2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 708

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D v. Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D v. Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Sita Ronfed Vs v.Ronfed

A.Srinivas Vs a.Rani Ratna Prabha , Rani

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam Vs Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. v. Hemalatha

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital Vs Sri Pranav Ravi

B. Vijaya Kumar Vs D.gopala Krishna Reddy