Disposed

Mahendra Pushpa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jun 2023WP/14173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order for the seizure and vacation of a shop. The Court held that coercive action was unjustified without a prior opportunity of hearing and directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry, permit petitioners to submit representations, share adverse material, and decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to permit petitioners to participate in inquiry by submitting representation within two weeks, furnish documents within one week, and take final decision on merits within three mon

Mahendra Pushpa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14173 of 2023

¶3

M. Puneeth Jain, S/o. P. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 32 years, Indian, Hindu, Occ:Business, R/o.D.No.18433, BKM Street, Kadapa City, Kadapa District and another.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, and another.

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 26.05.2023, seizing the premises of the Balaji Complex with dual lock viz., local-one lock of Municipal Corporation and the other one of the sub-lessee, by giving one month’s time to vacate the same by the lessee and the sub-lessee giving an opportunity to make a request before the 2^nd respondent within 7 days from the date of the impugned order.

¶10

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, originally one Smt. M. Pushpa, took the room No.20 of Balaji Complex within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondentCorporation on lease. She has been running a Mobile Shop business in the name of Mamatha Mobiles. While so, she died on 10.12.2021. Ever since, the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased lessee, continued with the said business in the said room No.20 of the said complex. While so, there was a surprise inspection by the 2^nd respondent and issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 26.05.2023 by the 2^nd respondent behind the back of the petitioners alleging that, the shop was given for sub-lease, the modifications have been made without the consent of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation and the original lessee is getting higher rents from the sublessee, causing financial loss to the 2^nd respondent-Corporation and violated other terms of the lease entered into between the original lessee and the 2^nd respondent-Corporation.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 2^nd respondent-Corporation has come to a conclusion to forcibly evict the petitioners on the above said allegations without there being any enquiry and giving of opportunity so far to the petitioners before taking such coercive action under the guise of

¶13

¶14

the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 26.05.2023. The said shop was seized by the 2^nd respondentCorporation with a direction to vacate the same, within a month’s time, by giving another 7 days time to represent before the 2^nd respondent. The said action of the 2^nd respondent cannot be appreciated, since the opportunity said to have been given to make a representation within 7 days is only after action is taken to vacate it is not prior to vacation and this procedure is unknown to law.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that, the 2^nd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 because of the violations committed by the petitioners and the recommendations made by the authorities concerned, pursuant to the surprise inspection. The petitioners are not running the business, whereas, they have sub-let the same to the third parties for higher rents, without taking permission from the 2^nd respondent-Corporation and as such, the 2^nd respondent is justified to take the above said action.

¶16

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that, the allegation of sub-letting the premises is not correct and the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the original lessee, are only running the business in the said

¶17

¶18

shop. Hence, the question of taking permission from the Corporation in this regard does not arise. The original lessee died in the year 2021 itself and the impugned proceedings are addressed in the name of the original lessee only, without atleast marking a copy to the LRs of the original lessee, which shows non-application of mind of the 2^nd respondent.

¶19

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is true that, by virtue of the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 26.05.2023, there was some surprise inspection of the said shop and according to the respondentofficials, there are certain violations as mentioned in the said impugned proceedings, which according to them, are contrary to the lease agreement entered into by the respondentCorporation with the original lessee. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a reasonable opportunity must have been given by the 2^nd respondentCorporation before taking any coercive action on the LRs of the original lessee and as well as if they are of the considered opinion that, the premises is given for sub-lessee, a copy should have been marked to the sub-lessee. If that is the case, in the absence of serving any copy of the impugned proceedings either

¶20

to the petitioners or to the sub-lessee on the site before proceeding with the action as contemplated under the

¶21

¶22

impugned proceedings may not be warranted and it is not justifiable under law at this stage to come to a conclusion that, the petitioners violated the total terms of the lease, without there being any discussion after giving opportunity to the effected parties.

¶23

In view of the same, the 2^nd respondent is directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the enquiry by submitting their representation within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with the necessary documents in respect of their grievance. On receipt of such representation from the petitioners, the further enquiry shall go on pursuant to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 26.05.2023 by furnishing all the documents, which are relied upon by the corporation against the petitioners, within a period of one week thereafter. After furnishing the adverse material by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners and after giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned including the petitioners, the enquiry shall be proceeded strictly in accordance with law and final decision should be taken by the 2^nd respondent-corporation on it’s own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

¶24

¶25

Till such time, there shall not be any coercive steps with respect to the allowing of the business in the said shop by the petitioners, if they are otherwise doing business as on the date of issuing the impugned proceedings dated 26.05.2023.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,

¶28

shall stand closed.

¶29

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶30

19.06.2023 PGT

Mahendra Pushpa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pushpa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

K. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppu Tirupataiah Vs the State of Ap

MD Avez Baig Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinukonda Jaya Vs the State of Ap

Neelam Santosh Ranganath Vs the State of Ap