IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29328 OF 2010 DATED:24.11.2010 Between: M/s. Tirumala Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor B. Laxman, S/o.Narsimha R/o. Keshavanagar, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Endowments Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29328 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is in occupation of a prima land admeasuring 8000 square feet at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, which belongs to the fourth respondent. The aforesaid piece of land was granted on lease to the petitioner on 30.3.1994 initially for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-, and in view of the representations made by him, the lease was extended from time to time on payment of enhanced rent. For the period for 2003-2008, the lease was extended on payment of monthly rent of R.3,000/-. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he made a further representation on 19.12.2008 to the Commissioner of Endowments seeking extension of the lease, proposing to enhance the rent to Rs.6,000/- per month, and when such representation is pending, without considering the same, the respondents have taken steps for eviction of the petitioner treating him as an encroacher. Even according to the petitioner, the lease period expired on 31.12.2008. In the absence of any valid lease, on what basis the petitioner continued in possession of the prime land belonging to the fourth respondent temple, is not known. Merely because a representation is made, that by itself is not a reason, for not taking steps for eviction of the petitioner. In view of expiry of the lease, the petitioner has no right for renewal of the lease and merely on the ground that proposals in the matter are pending, the petitioner cannot continue in possession of the land. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24.11.2010 bnr