Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams vs G. Rajasekhar Naidu on 25 January, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Appeal Suit No.112 of 2005
Judgment:
The appellant is plaintiff/Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD)
in O.S.No.202 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge's
Court, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The respondent herein is defendant
in the said suit.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the
trial Court.
3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:
The vacant site measuring 6' X 6' situated in 2nd New Choultry,
Tirupati, belonged to the plaintiff/TTD. The defendant was granted
license to run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of
one year from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. After expiry of license period,
the license was not renewed. As per rules, the authorities called for
tenders for the said premises to run STD booth for a period of one year
by means of publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies. Tenders
were opened in the presence of tenderers on 09-02-2001 at 03.15 p.m.
One K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was the highest bidder, he having
offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards license fee for the
plaint schedule premises. After expiry of license period, defendant has
no right to run the STD booth in the suit premises. The status of
defendant is that of an encroacher as per explanation to sub-section (1)
2 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
of Section 83 read with Section 118 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. He is liable to pay
damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises from
15-12-2000 onwards. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he is
an unemployee and a poor person and he has to maintain his family
consisting of old aged mother and two children. So, he applied to allot
STD booth to him under unemployment scheme. Accordingly, the STD
booth was allotted to him on 05-8-1991. The defendant accorded
permission to install the said telephone booth at TTD choultry Nos.2
and 3, Tirupati. On 19-10-1991, proceedings were given to the
defendant to install telephone booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for
one year and the vacant booth on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for one year
for the vacant site by measuring 6 X 6 feet. After expiry of the said
lease, lease was renewed for the period from 15-12-1992 to 14-12-1993.
Later on, the monthly existing rent of Rs.60/- was enhanced to Rs.75/-
and issued proceedings on 21-12-1993. The said rent was not
enhanced for the period from 15-12-1993 to 14-12-1994. The existing
rent of Rs.75/- has enhanced to Rs.150/- per month from 15-12-1994
to 14-12-1995. Again, the existing rent of Rs.150/- was enhanced to
Rs.188/- for the period from 15-12-1995 to 14-12-1996. The existing
rent of Rs.188/- was enhanced to Rs.294/- from 15-12-1997 to
3 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
14-12-1998. Later on, the existing rent of Rs.294/- was enhanced to
Rs.368/- from 15-12-1998 to 14-12-1999. Again, the existing rent of
Rs.368/- was enhanced to Rs.460/- from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000.
Thus, the plaintiff has been enhancing the monthly rents from Rs.60/-
to Rs.460/- per month periodically. Accordingly, the defendant has
been paying the monthly rents to the plaintiff regularly without
committing any default in payment of rent by the 5th of every succeeding
month. Apart from the said monthly rents, the plaintiff used to
collect electrical charges for the plaint schedule telephone booth.
On 12-10-2000, he made a requisition to the plaintiff and the same was
acknowledged on 16-10-2000 to renew the lease of plaint schedule
telephone booth for another 3 years by undertaking to pay the monthly
rent by enhancing 25% on the existing rent of Rs.460/-. Whenever he
approached the authorities of the plaintiff, they promised that they
would send renewal of the lease. The Plaintiff claiming alleged damages
of Rs.13,032-99 ps is exorbitant. There is no basis to fix the alleged
damages as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. He prayed to dismiss
the suit with costs.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled
for trial by the trial Court:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of damages
as prayed for ?
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for future damages at the rate of
Rs.13,033/- per month till the date of delivery of possession ? and
4 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
(3) To what relief ?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the
Assistant Executive Officer in Revenue Section, Tirupati, was examined
as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. The defendant examined
himself as D.W.1 and got examined one more witness as D.W.2.
No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant.
7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs
for Rs.14,000/- (at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 15-12-2000 to
31-5-2002) while dismissing the suit with regard to other reliefs,
against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
in the suit, questioning the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
8. Heard Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff (TTD). None for the respondent/defendant.
9. The learned counsel for plaintiff would contend that the trial
Court erred in granting damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from
15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 instead of Rs.13,033/- per month for the
plaint schedule telephone booth as offered by one K. Bhaskar Naidu of
Tirupati, by way of tender which was accepted by the plaintiff. She
would further contend that instead of granting damages as claimed by
the plaintiff, a paltry amount of damages were granted by the learned
5 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
trial Judge and she would further contend that the appeal may be
allowed by granting damages of Rs.2,28,077/- as claimed by the
plaintiff.
10. Now, the points for determination are:
1. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court
needs any interference ? and
2. To what extent ?
11. Point No.1:- Whether the judgment and decree of the trial
Court needs any interference ?
The undisputed facts are that the plaint schedule vacant site
measuring 6 X 6 feet situated in 2nd new choultry of Tirupati belongs to
the plaintiff was given to the defendant by way of licence to run an STD
booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year from
15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. The same is not in dispute by the
defendant. The case of the appellant is that after expiry of the above
licence period, the licence was not renewed and as per rules fixed by
the TTD, the authorities called for tenders for the said premises to run
STD booth for a period of one year by giving publication in Andhra
Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and tender submitted by one K. Bhaskar
Naidu of Tirupati was accepted as he offered a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps
per month towards licence fee and he was the highest bidder.
The plaintiff further pleaded that after expiry of licence period, the
defendant has no right to run STD booth in the suit premises.
6 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
12. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for granting
an amount of Rs.2,28,077/- being arrears of damages for use and
occupation of the plaint schedule telephone booth for the period from
15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month.
As stated supra, licence was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant to
run STD booth in the plaint schedule premises for a period of one year
from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000. The specific case of the plaintiff is
that after expiry of the lease period, a publication was given in Andhra
Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and tenders were called for and opened and
K. Bhaskar Naidu of Tirupati was the highest bidder because he offered
a sum of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month towards licence fee. The plaintiff
approached the trial Court for seeking a huge amount of Rs.2,28,077/-
in the year 2002. In those days, it is a huge amount, therefore, the
plaintiff has to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary
evidence. Admittedly, the defendant was granted licence to run STD
booth in the plaint schedule premises from 15-12-1999 to 14-12-2000
and thereafter the licence was not renewed. It is the severe contention
of the plaintiff that as per rules of TTD, tenders were called for by way
of publication in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu Dailies and the tender
submitted by K. Bhaskar Naidu was accepted. Admittedly, the said
paper publication alleged to have been given in Andhra Jyothi and
Eenadu Dailies is not at all filed by the plaintiff and there is no
7 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
documentary evidence to show that the tender submitted by K. Bhaskar
Naidu was accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also did not adduce
any evidence to show that the tender submitted by K. Bhaskar Naidu
was accepted. The plaintiff did not make any effort to examine the said
K. Bhaskar Naidu as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. As stated
supra, the plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.13,032-99 ps per month
towards damages from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the plaintiff also
issued a legal notice dated 07-5-2002 to the defendant calling upon him
to pay the suit claim.
13. The material on record reveals that the defendant filed the suit
O.S.No.201 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court,
Tirupati, against the plaintiff herein for perpetual injunction and
obtained a temporary order of injunction against the plaintiff herein.
Finally on hearing both sides, the temporary injunction was made
absolute and the plaintiff preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal against
the said order and it was also dismissed. The case of the plaintiff is
that they preferred a revision before this Court and the same is pending.
In fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiff. P.W.1 admits in cross-
examination that he has not perused the letter of the said K. Bhaskar
Naidu with a request to return the EMD. He pleaded ignorance whether
the tender of Bhaskar Naidu was accepted or not.
8 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
14. Per contra, to prove the defence, the defendant examined
himself as D.W.1. As per his evidence, when the plaintiff authority tried
to evict him, he filed O.S.No.201 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge's Court, Tirupati, for permanent injunction and a temporary
injunction was also granted and the same is not in dispute by the
plaintiff. As per his evidence, the defendant spent Rs.75,000/- towards
construction of telephone booth, flooring, foundation and for erection
of side walls and also roof with asbestos sheets. As per his evidence,
he is a poor man and has no movable or immovable properties and he
has to maintain his family with meagre income. He deposed in his
evidence that the site measuring 6 X 6 feet is available for lease on
monthly rent of Rs.450/- per month even that day.
15. In order to prove the defence, he also relied on the evidence of
D.W.2. As per the evidence of D.W.2, he is owner of mechanic shop
opposite to plaint schedule telephone booth at a distance of 50 years
from plaint schedule telephone booth and he used to pay Rs.750/- per
month as ground rent.
16. As stated supra, the plaintiff approached the trial Court for
seeking a huge amount of Rs.2,28,077/- for unauthorised occupation
of the defendant in the plaint schedule premises. Admittedly, no cogent
evidence is placed by the plaintiff for claiming damages of
Rs.2,28,077/-. As stated supra, no sufficient cogent evidence is placed
9 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
by the plaintiff as to the acceptance of tender of Bhaskar Naidu.
Admittedly, the said Bhaskar Naidu did not deposit 6 months rent apart
from giving bank guarantee for Rs.one lakh. The documentary evidence
produced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to fix the quantum of damages
for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises at the rate of
Rs.13,033/- per month. Exs.A-4 to A-8 reveals that the rent was
enhanced periodically at 25% on existing rent for every year. As on
14-12-2000, the licence fee was at Rs.460/- per month and the same
was enhanced to Rs.650/- per month for the year 2002 also. By giving
cogent reasons, the trial Court rightly awarded damages at the rate of
Rs.800/- per month from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the damages
claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.13,033/- per month for the
plaint schedule premises is highly excessive and also abnormal.
As stated supra, no cogent evidence is placed by the plaintiff to claim
damages at such rate. On considering the material on record and also
documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that
awarding damages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month for use and
occupation of the plaint schedule premises is just and proper. The trial
Court, by giving cogent reasons, fixed the damages of Rs.800/- per
month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises for the
period from 15-12-2000 to 31-5-2002 and the trial Court awarded in
total Rs.14,000/- towards suit claim.
10 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no
interference.
18. Point No.2:- To what extent ?
Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment
and decree, dated 01-11-2004, in O.S.No.202 of 2002 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_____________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
25th January, 2024.
Ak
11 VGKR, J.
as_112_2005
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
25th January, 2024.
(Ak)
