Telangana HC Orders Eviction of Encroachers from Ganesh Temple Property
Hyderabad: Justice M.G. Priyadarsini of the Telangana High Court directed the eviction of persons in occupation of property belonging to the Ganesh temple near Secunderabad railway station. After directing the unsuccessful appellants to vacate the premises, the judge directed the endowments assistant commissioner to evict those who were continuing in the scheduled property after the expiry of the lease period obtained without any right and without renewal or extension of the lease and to initiate necessary steps in evicting the respondents from the premises with police aid and deliver possession of the premises to the temple. The judge further directed the concerned station house
The judge was dealing with a civil appeal filed by the family members of late Ramamurthy challenging an order of eviction passed by the endowments assistant commissioner. It was alleged that Ramamurthy had encroached on a house allegedly belonging to the temple at Regimental Bazaar. It was alleged the family was continuing in the scheduled property after the expiry of the lease without any right and without renewal or extension of the lease. The appellant, it was alleged, was squatting there to convert the residential building into commercial shops and giving the same on sub-lease despite demands to vacate and without paying any amounts to the second applicant temple for use and occupation. The property is located in a busy locality, and it will fetch a huge amount if given on lease, it was stated.
Dismissing the appeal, Justice Priyadarsini pointed out that the appellant was not disputing the ownership of the temple over the suit schedule property. Even as per the contention of the appellants, they were paying rent of `650 to the landlord that is the second applicant, regularly. Hence, the respondents cannot claim adverse possession. The respondents being tenants cannot claim long-standing possession in respect of the petition schedule premises, which was obtained on lease. Hence, the contention of the respondents does not hold water since the appellants are admitting the tenancy, it is immaterial as to whether the tenant is of oral on or written lease, the judge said faulting the action the appellant, the court said the terminations notices have been issued by the second applicant to the appellant for the past several years but the appellant have been successful in dragging the matter over a period of more than two decades. Though it is contended that the termination notice was not served on them, as evident from the pleading, EX. A13 notice was affixed on the door of the premises and EX. A14 discloses that the appellant was not residing in the premises.
The judge said “Thus, the temple authorities tried their level best to serve the notice on the appellant but as the individual was not available, they were constrained to affix the notice on the door of the premises, which is deemed to be a proper service. Even otherwise, as stated supra, the temple authorities have been sending correspondence in the form of quit notices to the appellant for the past several years. However, the appellant was reluctant to vacate the scheduled premises. That apart, the appellant instead of vacating the premises, have been addressing representations to the executive officer of the temple and the government to renew the lease on sympathetic grounds that the appellant is having children, who are physically and visually challenged. Merely because the children of the appellant are physically and visually challenged, they cannot be permitted to stay even after issuance of termination notice”.
