Having Differently Abled Children Not Ground To Stay In Premises After Expiry/ Cancellation Of Tenancy Agreement: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has ruled that having differently abled dependents does not justify occupying a property after the expiry or cancellation of a lease.

“...the respondents instead of vacating the premises, have been addressing representations to the Executive Officer of the temple and Government to renew the lease on sympathetic grounds that the respondent is having children, who are physically and visually challenged. Merely because the children of the respondents are physically challenged and visually challenged, the respondents cannot be permitted to stay even after issuance of termination notice. A tenant, who continued even after termination of lease or tenancy, is declared as tenant by sufferance,” said Justice M. Priyadarsini.

The bench was dealing with a civil appeal filed against the order of the Endowments Tribunal evicting the appellant herein from the premise of Sri Ganesh Temple.

The Temple authorities had claimed that although the lease was rightfully given in the name of the grand-father of the appellant herein, the lease had since expired. The appellant, however, continued to stay in possession of the property without vacating it, despite receiving multiple eviction notices since 1998. It was further contended that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had deemed it unfit for living in.

The appellant on the other hand contended that he had only received an eviction notice in 2006, to which he replied and had been duly paying rent to the Temple authorities. He further stated that he had two children, both disabled and if he was evicted, he would face irreparable loss.

The Court noted that having disabled children cannot be a ground to unlawfully continue living in a premise after the expiry of the lease. Referring to section 83 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 the Bench noted that any person continuing to stay in the premise after the expiry of the lease would be deemed an encroacher.

“Therefore, from the above said explanation it is amply clear that a person, who continues to remain in the premises after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, is deemed to be a encroacher. Since the respondents have been refusing to evict the premises even after issuance of termination notice, they are to be considered as encroachers.”

Lastly, the bench noted that even otherwise, the appellant could not continue to reside in the premise due to the notice issued by GHMC holding it unfit for living in.

Hence the Appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: M. Rama Murthy & ors vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors.

Case no.: CMA 884 of 2012

Counsel for Appellant: Immaneni Rama Rao

Counsel for respondents: J.R. Manohar Rao, SC Endowments.

Click Here To Read/Download Order