Dismissed

Gaddam Chandra Mohan Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jun 2022WP/16268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioners had no vested right to extend their lease which expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the non-consideration of their representation for extension was not illegal or arbitrary, and the writ petition was dismissed, allowing a brief four-week grace period for them to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Petitioners allowed to continue in premises for four weeks from order date for handover.

Gaddam Chandra Mohan Reddy, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.16268 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners who are four in number filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the representation dated 4.4.2022 seeking extension of the existing lease of the petitioners’ shops and stalls as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioners were given license/lease in respect of shops for running the canteen, mineral water booth/plant, STD Booth and Juice stall in the premises of the 4^th respondent Hospital in the year 2000 on the condition of 10% of yearly enhancement of rent for extension on yearly basis. The petitioners license/lease was extended for all these years by the Hospital Development Committee. Now, the petitioners’ lease period expired on 31.03.2022. The petitioners made a representation dated 4.4.2022 seeking extension of the lease period for one more year in view of pandemic situation that prevailed for the last two years. As the representation of the petitioners is not considered, they filed the present writ petition.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though there is no business in view of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the rentals are being paid to the respondents every month and in spite of the representation made by the petitioners for extension of lease, the same is not being considered even on payment of enhanced rent of 10% and now, the Hospital Development Committee decided to vacate the petitioners from their shops/stalls and go for fresh lease. The petitioner failed to show any right seeking further extension on the enhancement of 10% monthly rent but only states that their representations for extension is not considered.

¶7

¶8

Sri B. Jagadeesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad states that the petitioners are not entitled for extension of the lease on payment of 10% of enhanced rentals, as the lease period expired and since the petitioners are continuing for the last more than 20 years, now the Hospital Development Committee decided to go for the process of auction by inviting tenders for fresh lease and the petitioners can also participate in the tender process.

¶9

Having considered the facts and circumstances, considering the submissions made and perused the record, this Court found that the petitioners were permitted to run the shops/stalls for the last more than 20 years with the 10% enhanced yearly rent and the said lease period expired on 31.3.2022 and the petitioners were asked to vacate the shops/stalls in the premises of District Hospital, Nandyal with effect from 1.4.2022. The petitioners submitted a representation on 4.4.2022 seeking extension of lease for one more year in view of pandemic situation. The petitioners have no vested right to continue in the said premises to run the shops/stalls. The Hospital Development Committee has taken a decision to invite tenders for allotment of shops/stalls in the premises of the Hospital. Non consideration of the representation of the petitioners for extension of lease cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are not entitled to continue in the leased premises. It is specifically held by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in the case of Super Star Amusement Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad¹ , as the lease period as per lease agreement

¶10

1 2018 SCC OnLine 951

¶11

¶12

entered into between the petitioners and respondent Corporation has already expired, the petitioners have no legal and vested right to claim extension of the lease period and/or renewal of the lease agreement However, since the petitioners are continuing in the leased premises for the last more than 20 years, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in the leased premises for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and immediately thereafter the petitioners shall handover the premises to the respondents and the respondent authorities are directed to go ahead with the tender process for allotment of shops/stalls and if the petitioners want to participate in the tender process or auction, they are at liberty to participate in the tender process, if they are otherwise eligible. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶13

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

¶14

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

Date:21.06.2022

CSR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶19

W.P.No.16268 OF 2022

¶20

DT:21.06.2022

¶21

CSR

Gaddam Chandra Mohan Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Chandra Mohan Reddy, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Joshitha Vs the State of Ap

Motupalli Amarnath Vs M Srihari Narayan

B Simhachalam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Suresh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Venkat Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

KatthiPeddaPenchalaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh