Disposed

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao v. The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality

Telangana HC4 Feb 2008WP/5902/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a lessee cannot be evicted by force and must follow due process. It directed the municipality to extend the same lease renewal benefit of a 33% enhancement to the petitioner as granted to other lessees.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be given same lease renewal benefit of 33% enhancement as other lessees; no forceful eviction without due process.

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5902 of 2004

¶3

Date: 04.02.2008

¶4

Between:

¶5

G.S.R.Durga Prasad

¶6

……PETITIONER(S)

¶7

A N D

¶8

1. The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality, Narasapuram, West Godavari District and another

¶9

……RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.5902 of 2004

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Petitioner obtained lease of a shop belonging to the first respondent Municipality for a period of three years. After expiry of the period of lease, petitioner and two other lessees were given notices dated 15.11.2003 directing them to vacate the premises by the mid night of 31.03.2004 on the pain of being evicted forcibly in default of their vacating the premises. Questioning the said notice, petitioner filed this petition alleging that as the second respondent who was elected as the Vice-Chairman of the first respondent Municipality and has a house behind his shop wants to get the shop occupied by him i.e. the petitioner demolished so as to have an access to his house to the main road.

¶14

2. While admitting the writ petition, a learned Judge by the order dated 01.04.2004 directed maintenance of status quo obtaining on that day till 06.04.2004, and by the order dated 05.04.2004 that order was extended till 19.04.2004, and by the order dated 21.04.2004 the status quo ordered earlier was extended till further orders.

¶15

3. Though the writ petition was admitted in 2004, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents till today.

¶16

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that leases of the other lessees are being renewed with an enhancement of 33% on the

¶17

existing lease amount and denial of such benefit to him also is discriminative.

¶18

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for first respondent Municipality.

¶19

6. Since no body can be evicted by force without taking recourse to due process of law, it is needless to mention that the petitioner, who is a lessee, cannot be evicted by force, but can be evicted only by taking recourse to due process of law. If the first respondent is extending the benefit of the renewal of the leases of the other lessees at an enhanced rate of 33% of the lease amount, it should extend the same benefit to the petitioner also.

¶20

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

04.02.2008

¶22

Cvrk

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao v. The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao v. The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality

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

Lakshmi Devi Complex, Vs a.P.State Financial Corporation

Ginne Saraswathi Vs The District Collector

K.Subash, (A2) Vs The State of A.P.

Thokapallygram Panchyat Vs Sec.Panchyat Raj Dept and 5 Ors.

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., Vs Kapra Municipality

Nagubandi Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Narasaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police