-
by sayum
28 May 2026 8:18 AM
“When the very foundation of tenancy is gone, possession becomes unauthorized — equitable relief may soften the fall, but not stop the eviction,” In a judgment affirming both the legal sanctity of endowment property and the boundaries of tenancy rights in trust lands, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 17th October 2025 dismissed the claims of tenants occupying shops on religious trust land, ruling that once their lessor—the trust itself—abandoned all legal claims over the property, the tenants lost any right to continue possession.
Justice Challa Gunaranjan upheld the eviction orders passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, though in an act of judicial equity, he set aside the Tribunal’s direction requiring the occupants to pay monthly damages for unauthorized use.
The appeal was filed under Section 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and challenged the Tribunal’s order in O.A. Nos. 767, 768, and 769 of 2011.
“Tenancy Cannot Outlive the Lessor's Legal Claim”: Trust’s Withdrawal of Legal Challenges Extinguished Tenants’ Rights
The Court’s decision turned on a pivotal legal principle: when the original trustees themselves relinquish or lose legal control of the trust property, any tenancy or possession under them cannot survive. The appellants, small-time shopkeepers on land situated at Door No.232/2, Mangalagiri Town, claimed tenancy through trustees of a religious trust created by Smt. Nandyala Narayanamma under a registered Will dated 02.12.1958.
In 2009, the remaining trustees transferred the trust property to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri, through a registered settlement deed dated 29.04.2009. Though this transfer was legally challenged in O.S. No. 144 of 2010 and W.P. No. 31056 of 2010, all proceedings were eventually withdrawn, rendering the transfer legally final and binding.
Observing the implications of this legal withdrawal, the Court held:
“Once the Secretary of the Trust, who has been canvassing the rights to acquire the subject property... has withdrawn all proceedings, the appellants herein, who claim to be tenants through them, cannot have any grievance over the subject property.”
The Court clarified that a tenant cannot assert a right superior to the title of their lessor, especially when the lessor has voluntarily surrendered all claims.
“Possession May Be Long, But Title Is None – Equity Saves From Damages, Not From Eviction”
The Tribunal had earlier held that the appellants were encroachers under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, ordered their eviction, and imposed monthly damages of ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 depending on the shop size. However, the High Court, while affirming the legality of eviction, took a compassionate view regarding damages.
Justice Challa Gunaranjan noted:
“Considering that the appellants are running small shops and eking out livelihood, and also stated to have paid rents to the Secretary of the Trust, this Court... is inclined to exonerate them from the liability of damages as ordered.”
The Court’s acknowledgment of the socio-economic hardship faced by the shopkeepers did not override the legal necessity of vacating religious trust land, but it balanced justice with compassion by eliminating the financial penalty.
Eviction Confirmed, But With Dignity – High Court Grants Two Months to Vacate
In a conclusive note, the High Court ordered that the appellants must vacate and hand over possession to the religious institution within two months. If they fail, the institution is at liberty to enforce the eviction through legal steps as earlier directed by the Tribunal. The Court also declined to impose costs.
Summing up the ruling, Justice Gunaranjan held:
“The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of by confirming the order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing the appellants... to vacate and deliver vacant possession... Insofar as the direction to the extent of payment of damages is concerned, the order is set aside.”
Date of Decision: 17.10.2025
