Telangana High Court
M/S.Bharat Auto Mobiles vs Assistant Commissioner on 30 April, 2021
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.676 OF 2021
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.14.10.2019 in O.A.No.15 of 2017 of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern and was tenant of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent Trust at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad for more than 60 years. The rent for the said premises was Rs.750/- per month.
The plea of the respondents in the O.A
3. The respondents filed O.A.No.15 of 2017 under Section 83(1) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short, "the Act") for eviction of the petitioner contending that the rent was insufficient and very low though the demised premises is located in commercial area of Afzalgunj in the heart of the city, that the demised premises was in a dilapidated condition, that some of the Trust buildings collapsed on 09.10.2016 due to heavy rains, and the 1st respondent also informed and requested the Assistant City Planner, GHMC Central Zone, Abids, Hyderabad to demolish it, but they did not do so. 2
4. It was contended by the respondents that the demised premises had become dangerous for the people to cohabit; that the 2nd respondent had issued a notice on 10.10.2016 asking the petitioner to vacate the demised premises and hand over the same to the 2nd respondent within one month in order to facilitate demolition by GHMC authorities. But the petitioner replied stating that the premises is in it's occupation, that it is in good condition and needs no repair and they would lose their livelihood and business due to demolition of the said property.
5. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has no regular source of income other than the rents from the demised premises and other such mulgies, that the 1st respondent is contemplating demolition of the structure and later renovation of the mulgies to attract market value rents by fixing regular and standard source of income, and so the petitioner should be declared as 'encroacher' since he failed to vacate the demised premises.
The stand of the petitioner in the OA
6. The petitioner filed a counter denying the contents of the O.A.
7. The proprietor of petitioner stated that there was no cause of action to evict it. It also stated that there are no arrears of rent payable. According to it, the rent is not nominal or insufficient and it was willing to enhance the rent if extension of lease is granted, and it 3 also claimed that representation dt.29.05.2017 was made to the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad.
8. According to it, it was a tenant in the said premises for more than 60 years, that earlier the Trust Board Members had made a proposal to the Executive Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department and a report was submitted to the Commissioner, Endowments stating that there is no need to evict the petitioner and other tenants till grant of permission for demolition; and the petitioner should be permitted to vacate voluntarily giving an undertaking that in the new shopping complex building to be built by the respondents, they would be given proportionate portions and that they had agreed to the said proposal.
9. According to it, recommendation was also made to the Commissioner, Endowments and the latter had made recommendation to the Government on 13.01.1999, but the Government had not accepted it.
10. According to it, in 2016 there were heavy rains and the back portion of the first floor building collapsed, but the municipal authorities stated that the ground floor portion was fit for human habitation and there was no imminent danger.
4The order of the Tribunal in the OA
11. Before the Tribunal, the respondents examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 while the petitioner examined its Proprietor as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B6.
12. By order dt.14.10.2019, the Tribunal allowed the O.A.
13. After referring to the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal observed that the representation made by the petitioner and others in 1999 would not be alive at present, that due to efflux of time it has become redundant, and the condition put forth by the petitioner for vacating the premises was not tenable since the respondents were supposed to follow the rules laid down in G.O.Ms.No.866, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dt.08.08.2003 while issuing licences to commercial establishments in Endowment properties.
14. It also took note of the fact that the respondents need the premises in occupation of the petitioner for renovation or for construction of new premises and as long as it is in occupation, it would not be possible for the Endowment authorities to renovate or construct new premises.
15. Therefore, it held that the requirement of the property by the respondents appears to be genuine and continuation of the petitioner in the premises without valid lease or licence under the above G.O. would make the petitioner an 'encroacher' as per Explanation to 5 Section 83(1) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore granted three (3) months to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The instant CRP
16. Challenging the same, this CRP is filed.
17. I may first state that the CRP is filed with considerable delay on 09.04.2021, and there is not even an Application filed for condonation of enormous delay in filing this Revision to challenge the order dt.14.10.2019 passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal.
18. That apart, there is no valid lease or licence in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.866, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dt.08.08.2003 which deals with issuance of leases/licences for commercial establishments in Endowments premises. In the absence of such a lease in favour of the petitioner, it would have to be termed to be an 'encroacher' as per Explanation to Section 83(1) of the Act and is therefore liable for eviction.
19. The petitioner cannot rely on the representation made by it along with others in 1999 for continuation in the subject premises because the said representation cannot be said to be alive at present. Also the petitioner had any way continued doing business in the demised premises for more than 22 years thereafter.
20. Admittedly, due to heavy rains in 2016, even according to the petitioner, the first floor of the premises, in which the petitioner is 6 doing business, fell down and had been removed by the GHMC. The respondents wish either to renovate the existing ground floor premises or to build new premises there and let it out on market rate so that the respondent Trust would have adequate income.
21. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad on 14.10.2019 in O.A.No.15 of 2017.
22. Accordingly, the Revision fails and is dismissed. However, time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in its occupation on or before 31.07.2021. No costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CRP shall also stand dismissed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 30-04-2021 SVV