APHC010704342014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 38198 OF 2014 Between: K.R. Subramanyam, ...PETITIONER AND Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A L RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 38198 OF 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent proposing to conduct Open Auction of Shop No.3, Tadipatri Road, Old Block, Ground Floor Anantapuramu vide Auction Notice R/C.No.34/2013/A1, dated 4.12.2014 published in Eenadu Telugu daily, Anantapuramu Edition dated 5.12.2014 in so far as it relates to item No.1 is concerned as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules 1968 and the matter is subjudice before this Hon’ble Court in S.A.SR.No.8296/2013 and consequently direct the respondents to desist themselves from further proceeding with Open Auction of Shop No.3, Tadipatri Road, Old Block, Ground Floor, Anantapuramu pursuant to Open Auction Notice R/C No.34/2013/A1 dated 04.12.2014 published in Eenadu Telugu daily Anantapuramu Edition dated 5.12.2014 without following the procedure contemplated in Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules 1968 and also direct the 2nd respondent to put the petitioner in possession of Shop No.3 Tadipatri Road, Old Block, Ground Floor, Anantapuramu and continue him as lessee of the said shop and pass such other orders....” 2. The petitioner claims to be the lessee of the Shop No.3, Ground Floor, Old Block, Tadipatri Bus Stand, Anantapuramu since 1986 onwards and he was paying rents without any default. While so, one Mr. Devisetty Venkateswarlu had filed a suit in O.S.No. 864 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu and under the guise of injunction he occupied the said shop. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed on 13.08.2007 and an Appeal has been filed in A.S.No. 79 of 2009 on the file of V Additional Ditrict Judge, Anantapuramu, which was also dismissed on 28.08.2009. It is further stated that the Second Appeal No. 1055 of 2009 on the file of this Court filed by said Devisetty Venkateswarlu was also dismissed at the stage of admission. 3. While so, the Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No. 322 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu claiming arrears of rent and for eviction against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed on 31.03.2003. Against the same, an Appeal filed by the petitioner vide A.S.No.127 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, was disposed on 22.04.2013 mulcting liability on both petitioner and the trespasser Devisetty Venkateswarlu. Against which Second Appeal was also preferred. While so, the respondent authorities have issued impugned auction notice, though the petitioner has been in possession of the shop from 24.05.2013 after long run civil litigation against the trespasser. 4. Considering the scenario that the petitioner was placed in the schedule, the writ petition was filed, questioning the auction notice on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 25 years of possession, which is said to be the outer limit for continuing possession vide G.O.Ms.No.686, Municipal Administration, dated 30.04.2008 i.e A.P.Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. 5. This Court on 12.12.2014 had passed an interim order directing the Municipal Corporation, Anantapuramu not to finalize the auction as regards the Shop No.3 is concerned. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/ Corporation, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is continuing in the shop and he is not paying any rents to the Respondent/ Corporation and that the Municipal Corporation has incurred huge loss. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/ Corporation had placed on record the Written Instructions of the Commissioner of Respondent/ Corporation. 7. Considering Written Instructions of the Respondent/ Corporation, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions: i) The petitioner shall be called upon to pay rent including arrears within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and ii) in the event of default of payment, the respondent/ Corporation is entitled to take action against the petitioner for possession of the subject property. 8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.04.2025 KK