G. Bhoomaiah v. The State Of Telangana

t 3418 J HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 12t44 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Filed Against the Order Dated251 1 1 12024 in writ petition No.231 90 ol 2024 on the fi le of the High Court. Between:

1. G. Bhoomaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 65 Years Occ- Business Shop No. 1 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dishict.

2. Fayaz, S/o. Ghouse, Aged about 43 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 7 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District,

3. M. Arena, Wo. Laxmi Narayana, Aged about 48 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 6 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

4. B. Sathish, S/o.Rajesham, Aged about 39 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 9 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District. .....APPELLANTS'

wRlT PETIflONERS 1, 10, 5 & 6 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana State, Secreta riat buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner Having Office at Karimnagar District3. The Deputy- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

4. The Telangana State Waif Board, Rep by its CEO Haj House Nampally Hyderabad.

....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

5. G. Premnath, S/o. Raiaiah, Aged about 61 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 2 Market Road, Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

6. D. Ramesh Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh, Aged about 40 Years Occ- Business Shop No. 4 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

7. K.Mallesham, S/o Jaggaiah Aged about 56 years, Occ- Business Shop No. 5 Market Road, Veetable Market Karimnagar District.

8. P. Maruthi Reddy, S/o. Ramalingaiah, Aged about 65 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 13 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

9. D. Srirangam, S/o. Narcaiah, Aged about 52 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 14 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

10. M. Ramesh, S/o. Late M. Rajamallu, Aged about 40 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 3 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District. 1'l .T. Bhaskar, S/o. T. Veeresham Aged about 45 Years, Occ- Business Shop No. 8 Market itc,cl Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District.

12. K. Srinivas, S/o. Late. K. Venkatgesham, Aged about 55 Years, OccBusiness Shop No. 5 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karirnnagar District.

13. Md. lbrahim, S/o. Md.Shafi, Aged about 37 Years Occ- Business Shop No. '1 1 Market Road Vegetable Market, Karimnagar District. Writ Petitioners (The respondents 5 to 13 are not necessary parties in the present appeal) .....RESPONDENTS/wRIT PETITIONERS |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to suspend the operation of the orders passed in W.P.No.23190 of 2024 dated 2511112024 by directing the respondents 2 to 4 not to evict/d rspossess the petitioners from the shops premises situated at Rajiv Gandhi Shopping Complex, Karimnagar at KMC Complex Main Vegetable market, Karimnagar pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

Counsel for Appellants : SRI RAVENDAR SAMALA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI MURALIDHAR REODY KATRAM, AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3 : SRI K.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN Counsel for Respondent Nos.S to 13 : -- The Court made the following JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE TI{E CIIIEF JUSTICE AI.OK ARADHE AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1444 of 2o24 JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hoft'ble the ChieJ Justice Atok Aradhp) Mr. Samala Ravendar, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel I I I for the respondent No.4.

I 2.

Heard on the question of admission I

3. This intra court appeal is liled against the order i I dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by I I which the writ petition preferred by the appellants and i i others, namely W.P.No.23 190 of 2021, has been disposed of directing the appellants to vacate the subject shops

within a period'of 30 days. The appellants have also been granted the liberty to submit a representation with regard to the arrears of rent to the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation and the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation has been directed to decide the same.

4.

Facts giving rise to frling of this appeal briefly stated are that 21 shops were constructed by the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation in the shopping complex known as Rajiv Gandhi Shopping Complex (hereinafter referred to as, "the complex"). The aforesaid 21 shops were leased out to the appellants ald others as tenants on month ly rent about thirty years ago. It is not in dispute that the lease deed executed in favour of tJ'e appellants has expired.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, conducted an open auction on 06.03.2024 in respect of the shops in the complex. The appellants thereafter, bv a communication dated 06.08.2O24, \ rere informed that the open auction in respect of the subject shops was conducted on 06.03.2024 atd the appellants were asked to handover the possession of the shops to the

//'

successful bidders in the auction. The Deputy Commissioner requested the appellants to vacate the shops within 24 hours and to pay the arrears of rent for the period from Ol.O4.2O2O to 31.O7.2024.

6.

The appellants challenged the aforesaid notice in a writ petition , inter alia, on the ground that the time of 24 hours granted to vacate the shops is unreasonable and the appellants should be granted six months time to vacate the shops in question. It was also pleaded in the writ petition that the respondents had seized the shops in the month of March, 2024, and therefore, the appellants were not in a I position to conduct their business. It was also pleaded that the appellants are not liable to pay arty amount towards arrears of rent as claimed in the notice dated O6.Oa.2O24.It was also pleaded that in view of the interim order of stay granted in W.P.No.398O2 of 2016, the appellants cannot be asked to vacate the shops.

7. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 25.11.2024, inter alia, held that the lease executed in favour of the appellants, fgr the shops ln question has

already expired. However, the learned Single Judge found tlrat 24 hours time granted to vacate the premises is unreasonable. The learned Single Judge, therefore, modified tLre time to vacate the premises to thirty days. The learned Single Judge further directed that since there is a disputt: with regard to payment of rent, the appellants are at liberty to submit a representation to the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation and the said Corporation shatl decide the representation which may be submitted by the appellants by affording an opportunity of hearing, It was further directed that in case it is found that the appetlants are due ancl liable to pay the arrears of rent, the same shall be determined and shall be recovered from the appellalts. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the appellants was disposed of. Hence this appeal.

8Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the lease deed executed in favour of the appellants has already been expired. However, it is submitted that the appella4ts be granted two months time i

'/ to vacate the premises as the appellants have not recovered the amount due to them from their customers.

g.

We have considered the submissions made by the Iearned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.

10. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated O1.O7.2024 passed in W.A.No.352 of 2024, has categorically recorded a finding that the lease deed executed in favour of the appellants in respect of the shops in question has expired long back and the appellants have no statutory right to insist that the auction in respect of \ t the shops in question should not be conducted' In other words, the validity of the auction conducted on 06'03'2024 has already been upheld. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment had granted liberty to the appellants to participate in the auction' However, the appellants have not disclosed whether in pursualce of the liberty granted to them, they have participated in the auction. Therefore, the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation is under an obligation to handover possession of the shops \

ln question to the auction purchasers. .The appellants have no legal right to continue in the shops in question beyond the period of lease.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to ,Ciffer with the view taken by the learned Single Judge

12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Misce llaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I SD/- M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \,\ _ SECTION OFFICER To l. Two CCs to (3P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI RAVENDAR S4MALA, Advocate IOPUCI

3. ONC CC tO SRI K.PRABHAKAR RAO, SC FOR MI'CL IC,PUC]

4. One CC to SRt FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR TSWB topubl

5. Two CD Copies SA PSK r

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024

JUDGMENT

1Hu S1.1 'U or ( lull t ( q oo 3 O JIN WA.No.1444 ot 2O24 "-) DEs PATCg€ t t () DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS.

I1, { l/