{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The respondents assert their longstanding possession and question the validity of termination notices, claiming they have not defaulted in rent and that they requested lease extension. They challenge the applicability of the Act to their occupancy. The temple authorities and applicants contend that the respondents\u2019 tenancy was lawfully terminated, that adverse possession is unsustainable, and that the building\u2019s deteriorating condition and unauthorized commercial modifications necessitate eviction.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Ms. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini" ], "case_number": [ "CMA No. 884 of 2012" ], "cases_referred": [ "Brij Narayan Shukla (died) through LRs vs Sudhesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (died) through LRs and others [2024 Live Law (SC) 17]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The appellants contend they are lawful occupants through a decades-old tenancy and that no proper notice of termination was served. The temple authorities argue the tenancy ended and that the occupant converted the premises into commercial shops without authorization, justifying eviction.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "28.03.2024", "facts": "The dispute arises from allegations that the respondent\u2019s predecessors were long-standing tenants of a temple property. The temple authorities claim that the tenancy expired and that the respondent is now an encroacher who has not paid rent or vacated the premises. An application under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 was filed before the Tribunal, which ordered the respondent\u2019s eviction. The respondent\u2019s legal representatives appealed to set aside that order.", "final_status": "No final outcome stated in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "In this appeal, the temple authorities alleged that the respondent was in unauthorized occupation of temple premises after the lease expired, prompting the Endowments Tribunal to order eviction. The respondent appealed, asserting a long-standing tenancy and lack of proper termination notice. No final disposition of the appeal is provided in this excerpt.", "held": "The excerpt does not contain the court\u2019s conclusive holding or directions beyond the Tribunal\u2019s initial eviction order.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the respondent acquired any adverse possession or continuing tenancy rights over the temple property, and whether the amended Section 83 of the Act applies to a long-standing occupant.", "prayer": "Aggrieved by the Judgment (Award) dated 31.07.2012 (hereinafter will be referred as \u2018impugned judgment\u2019) in O.A.No.329 of 2010 (old No.80 of 2007 of D.C., Hyderabad) passed by the learned A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as \u201cTribunal\u201d), the Opposite Parties filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.", "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987": "The brief facts of the case are that the first applicant i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad has forwarded the proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred to as \u201cthe Act\u201d for brevity) in RC No.C/2495/20096 dated 13.03.2007 submitted by the second applicant i.e., Executive Officer of Sri Ganesh Temple, Station Road, Secunderabad against the sole respondent, who is alleged to have encroached house bearing No.9-3-74, 75 and 76 situated in Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, which is alleged to be belonging to second applicant." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The respondents assert that they hold longstanding possession and challenge the applicability of the Act and the validity of the termination notices. They deny any default in rent. The applicants maintain that the respondents admit tenancy, so adverse possession cannot be claimed; they also argue the building\u2019s condition warrants eviction for public safety.", "cases_referred": [ "Brij Narayan Shukla (died) through LRs vs Sudhesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (died) through LRs and others [2024 Live Law (SC) 17]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The second applicant sought eviction of the respondents from the suit premises, contending they were tenants who refused to vacate despite repeated notices and demands. A tribunal directed the respondents to vacate the premises within one month. The respondents, disputing the applicant\u2019s claim and alleging continued possession, filed this appeal challenging the tribunal\u2019s order.", "final_status": "No final decision is indicated in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "The document describes a dispute where the tribunal ordered eviction of tenants who allegedly failed to vacate despite notices. The tenants appealed, arguing adverse possession and non-applicability of statutory provisions. The applicants cite frequent notices and regular rent payments as evidence that adverse possession is untenable. The matter remains on appeal, with no final outcome stated.", "held": "There is no conclusive holding in the provided text; the matter remains under appeal.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the respondents can claim adverse possession despite paying rent and whether the eviction order, supported by termination notices, is enforceable.", "prayer": "Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.", "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "The Act (Section 83)": "At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d" } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants argue that the respondents are encroachers after the lease ended, that the building is unsafe, and that it is being used commercially without permission. The respondents claim long-standing possession, dispute the extent of the property, and assert that they made requests for lease extension, contending they should not be evicted.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "28.03.2024", "facts": "The respondents have occupied an old building originally leased to their grandfather many decades ago. It has fallen into disrepair and is allegedly unsafe, prompting notices from local authorities. Despite the cancellation of their lease, the respondents have stayed on the premises while also converting it for commercial use without permission. The matter was taken before a tribunal, which ordered their eviction, leading to the present appeal.", "final_status": "The appeal is dismissed.", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the court addresses an appeal by occupants who remained in an unsafe and deteriorating building after their lease was terminated. The tribunal\u2019s order to evict them is upheld, finding that the occupants are unauthorized and the structure\u2019s condition poses a risk to public safety.", "held": "The court affirmed that the respondents must vacate the premises within one month, failing which eviction may be enforced with police assistance, emphasizing the unsafe condition and unauthorized commercial use.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether continued occupation after lease termination constitutes encroachment and whether safety concerns and unauthorized commercial use justify eviction.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "HMC Act, 1955": "It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity to claim equitable relief. Furthermore, as stated supra, the premises, is not in a fit condition to live even as per the notice dated 26.6.2023 issued under Section 459 of the HMC Act, 1955. Thus, viewed from any angle, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises.", "the Act": "tenancy, is declared as tenant by sufferance. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d" } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "No arguments made by either party are outlined in this excerpt.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "28.03.2024", "facts": "No factual background is provided. The excerpt only indicates that the respondents were occupying premises belonging to the applicant temple, and the court ordered their eviction with police assistance if necessary, delivering possession to the applicant temple. The snippet does not mention prior procedural steps.", "final_status": "disposed", "formatted_summary": "This passage reflects the final portion of the judgment, instructing that the respondents be evicted from the premises, with police aid if necessary, and that possession be handed over to the applicant temple; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.", "held": "The court directed that the respondents be evicted from the premises and that possession be delivered to the applicant temple with police aid if necessary, with the Station House Officer\u2019s assistance, and all pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No legal issues are described in this excerpt.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [ "Sri Immaneni Rama Rao (for Appellants)", "Sri J. R. Manohar Rao, Standing Counsel for Endowments (for Respondents)" ], "delivered_date": "28.03.2024", "facts": "The dispute revolves around allegations that the respondents\u2019 predecessors had been long-standing tenants of temple property. The temple authorities contend that the lease was terminated and that the respondents refused to vacate despite repeated notices and demands. An application under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 was filed, and the Tribunal declared the respondents encroachers, ordering their eviction. The respondents maintain that they hold longstanding possession, dispute the validity of termination notices, and deny default in rent. They appealed against the Tribunal\u2019s order, claiming continued tenancy rights and objecting to the property\u2019s unsafe condition being used as grounds for eviction. The building is old and allegedly converted to commercial use without authorization, prompting this appeal process.", "final_status": "dismissed", "first_party": [ "1. M. Rama Murthy and four others, rep. by Sri Immaneni Rama Rao" ], "grouped_statutes": { "A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987": [ "The brief facts of the case are that the first applicant i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad has forwarded the proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred to as \u201cthe Act\u201d for brevity) in RC No.C/2495/20096 dated 13.03.2007 submitted by the second applicant i.e., Executive Officer of Sri Ganesh Temple, Station Road, Secunderabad against the sole respondent, who is alleged to have encroached house bearing No.9-3-74, 75 and 76 situated in Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, which is alleged to be belonging to second applicant.", "At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d", "tenancy, is declared as tenant by sufferance. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d" ], "HMC Act, 1955": [ "It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity to claim equitable relief. Furthermore, as stated supra, the premises, is not in a fit condition to live even as per the notice dated 26.6.2023 issued under Section 459 of the HMC Act, 1955. Thus, viewed from any angle, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises." ] }, "held": "The court affirmed that the respondents must vacate the premises within a stipulated period, holding that the continued occupation was unauthorized. The building\u2019s unsafe condition and unauthorized commercial use were cited as grounds for eviction, and the appeal was dismissed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether respondents acquired adverse possession or continuing tenancy rights over the temple property", "whether Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 applies to long-standing occupants", "whether the eviction notices were validly served and enforceable", "whether safety concerns and unauthorized commercial use justify eviction." ], "location": "Hyderabad", "prayer": "Aggrieved by the Judgment (Award) dated 31.07.2012 (hereinafter will be referred as \u2018impugned judgment\u2019) in O.A.No.329 of 2010 (old No.80 of 2007 of D.C., Hyderabad) passed by the learned A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as \u201cTribunal\u201d), the Opposite Parties filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, rep. by Sri J. R. Manohar Rao, Standing Counsel for Endowments", "2. The Executive Officer of Sri Ganesh Temple, Station Road, Secunderabad, rep. by Sri J. R. Manohar Rao, Standing Counsel for Endowments" ], "statutes": { "A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987": "The brief facts of the case are that the first applicant i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Secunderabad has forwarded the proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred to as \u201cthe Act\u201d for brevity) in RC No.C/2495/20096 dated 13.03.2007 submitted by the second applicant i.e., Executive Officer of Sri Ganesh Temple, Station Road, Secunderabad against the sole respondent, who is alleged to have encroached house bearing No.9-3-74, 75 and 76 situated in Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, which is alleged to be belonging to second applicant. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d Tenancy, is declared as tenant by sufferance. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the explanation to Section 83 of the Act, which is as under: \u201cExplanation:\u2014 For the purpose of this Chapter the expression \u2018encroacher\u2019 shall mean any person who unauthorizedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or license and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or license in respect thereof granted to him or it.\u201d", "HMC Act, 1955": "It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity to claim equitable relief. Furthermore, as stated supra, the premises is not in a fit condition to live even as per the notice dated 26.6.2023 issued under Section 459 of the HMC Act, 1955. Thus, viewed from any angle, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987": "\u2014 Eviction of Encroachers \u2014 Section 83 \u2014 Definition of \u2018encroacher\u2019 includes occupation without approval beyond lease termination \u2014 Respondents continued to occupy temple property after valid termination of tenancy \u2014 Adverse possession and continuing tenancy claims rejected \u2014 Building\u2019s unsafe condition and unauthorized commercial use cited \u2014 Tribunal and appellate courts held respondents unauthorized occupants \u2014 Eviction orders upheld \u2014 Appeal dismissed.", "HMC Act, 1955": "\u2014 Eviction of unauthorized occupants \u2014 Premises found unsafe under Section 459 notice \u2014 One who seeks equity must do equity \u2014 Respondents\u2019 continuing occupation after lease termination held unsustainable \u2014 Unauthorized commercial use and structural concerns justify eviction \u2014 Appeal dismissed." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "Multiple appeals arose from eviction orders obtained by the temple authorities against occupants who stayed in the property after lease termination. The respondents claimed adverse possession or continuing tenancy and challenged the validity of termination notices. The authorities cited unauthorized commercial use and structural safety concerns, initiating proceedings under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The Tribunal and subsequent courts concluded that the respondents were encroachers, dismissed their appeals, and upheld eviction to protect public safety and ensure adherence to the temple\u2019s rights." } }