Disposed

V. Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Secretary

Telangana HC30 Mar 2015WP/8217/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction notice orders. The court allowed petitioners to continue as lessees until the property is auctioned, provided they vacate upon finalization of the auction, allowing them to bid and continue if successful, while enhancing rent by 33 1/3%.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to continue as lessees with 33 1/3% rent enhancement until auction concluded; right to bid and continue as lessees if successful; eviction permitted upon auction finalization.

V. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8217 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the rejection orders passed by the first respondent in Memo No.7778/A1/2014 dated 12.02.2015 and consequential order of the 2^nd respondent in ROC.No.622/2010/A1 dated 10.03.2015 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned G.P.for Municipal Administration, appearing for the first respondent and Sri Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶6

At the time of hearing, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of writ petition No.23954 of 2009. But the learned standing counsel submits that since it is a case of cinema theatre and huge machinery was lying, this Court taken such a view. As such, that judgment may not be applicable to the facts of the case. This is also a shop for running a business and petitioners are being evicted for conducting fresh action. But as on today, no auction notice is issued, it is only notice for eviction under Section 194 of the Hyderabad Municipalities Act. As such, petitioners cannot have any grievance.

¶7

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the pleadings by both the parties, I feel that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.23954 of 2009. The respondents can go ahead with conducting auction to the shops, which are occupied by the petitioners, without evicting the petitioners, since the petitioners are undertaking that they will vacate the shops as and when auction is conducted and finalized. In view of the same, as and when respondents 1

¶8

and 2 conduct auction, the petitioners can also participate in the said auction and if they emerge as highest bidders, they shall be entitled to continue as fresh lessees otherwise there shall be no obligation to vacate the premises as and when auction proceedings are finalized and the respondent-Corporation wants to put the property in possession of the successful bidders. Till the said exercise is completed, the petitioners shall continue as lessees on enhancing 33 1/3% over and above the existing rents. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶9

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶10

30.03.2015

¶11

Rns

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.8217 OF 2015

¶14

Date:30.03.2015

¶15

Rns

V. Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sri Sarada Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Vs The Guntur Municipal Corporation

Amrat Kumar Jain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pentakota Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Majeti Kutumba Rao Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Medisetti Srikanth, Vs The State of Telangana

Anil Kumar Joshi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by the Principal Secretary