Disposed

G Perumal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2021WP/9287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner held a lease of a temple shop that was closed due to the pandemic. The temple initiated auction proceedings for the leasehold rights before resolving the tenure dispute. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the temple to allow the petitioner to remain in possession for one month, after which the temple may conduct the auction. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent-temple to permit the petitioner to remain in possession for one more month and carry on activities without interference.

G Perumal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.9287 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner had taken shop No.3 in the 3^rd respondenttemple on lease for the period from 01.12.2019 to 30.11.2020. He was directed to shut down the shop from 21.03.2020 on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and the regulations issued to control the said pandemic. The temple premises which had been closed on 21.03.2020, was reopened on 26.09.2020. However, the petitioner claims that the shop was reopened only on 26.09.2020 as permission was not granted for reopening of the shops until then. The petitioner had thereupon given two representations dated 26.09.2020 and 28.09.2020, for extension of the licence period. While the petitioner was waiting for reply to his representations, the 3^rd respondent is said to have initiated auction proceedings to auction the leasehold rights of the said shop by way of tender dated 09.04.2021. Aggrieved by the proposed auction, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶5

Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued Memo No.Rev-01/Endw/276/2020-Endts.II dated 26.12.2020, directing the Special Commissioner, Endowments Department to extend the lease/licence period of various licensees/lessees of Religious and Charitable Institutions for a period equivalent to the period of stoppage of Darshanams and concerned activities

¶6

RRR,J 2 W.P.No.9287 of 2021

¶7

of the said institutions, without any additional payment for such period.

¶8

It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said Memo, the Commissioner, Endowment Department had issued Memo No.B3/12/1/2021 dated 21.01.2021, directing the Executive Officers of the temples and institutions to submit proposals to respective authorities for issuance of separate orders for extending the lease/licence period.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that despite the representations being given and despite the memoranda issued by the Government and the Commissioner, the 3^rd respondent Executive Officer without following the said procedure and without applying the Judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2020 in W.P.No.23613 of 2020, had taken up auction of the leasehold rights.

¶10

Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent-temple would submit that even if the period of closure is taken as six months, as claimed by the petitioner, the said period would expire by 30.06.2021 and as such, the petitioner would have to vacate the premises as of today. He submits that in those circumstances, the writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises forthwith and handover the property to the 3^rd respondent-temple.

¶11

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.9287 of 2021

¶12

Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the petitioner was not permitted to carry on its activities for the past two months on the ground that the lease of the petitioner had expired.

¶13

In view of the above submissions, a practical view of the matter can be taken by disposing of this Writ Petition with a direction to the 3^rd respondent-temple to permit the petitioner to remain in possession of the leased premises for one more month and to carry on his activities without any interference from the 3^rd respondent-temple for that period.

¶14

Thereupon, it shall be open to the 3^rd respondenttemple to conduct an auction of the leasehold rights of the said premises and it would be open to the petitioner also to participate in the said auction.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

08^th July, 2021 RJS

¶18

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶19

RRR,J 4 W.P.No.9287 of 2021

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶21

W.P.No.9287 of 2021

¶22

08^th July, 2021

¶23

RJS

G Perumal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Perumal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vutukuri Rajarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Duggisetty Jaya Prada, Vs Sri K.V.N Chakradhar Babu

P Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ajmira Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, Vs The State of andhra pradesh

Ajmira Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.