IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1074 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/09/2007 in WP NO : 21359 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mohd.Shamshuddin, s/o Sheik Ahmed, r/o 127-6-548/1, Outside Dabirpura, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Executive Engineer, Central Division, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Competent Authority, Central Division, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Appeal No.1074 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant, who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, has filed this appeal inter alia assailing the order, dated 21.9.2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21359 of 2006, whereunder the relief sought for by the appellant to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner/appellant from shop No.1 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Complex, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary, was rejected. The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that, he is the partner of the partnership business, being run in the said premises, along with the son, who happened to be the legal heir of the tenant, and the said son of the original tenant retired from the partnership firm. The parties as well as the Appellate Authority did not find favour with the orders, dated 23.8.2004 passed by the competent authority. The appeal in C.MA.No.268 of 2004 filed by the original tenant represented by the petitioner against the said orders dated 23.8.2004 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by orders dated 3.8.2006. Challenging the action of the respondents in vacating the appellant from the schedule premises, the appellant has filed the writ petition. The learned single judge having gone into the contentions and the objections raised by the appellant, did not agree with the same and eventually dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that the entire observations and the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the appellant has no right to claim that he is the tenant and the legal heir of the original tenant and, in fact, it amounts to violation and contravention of the original allotment, since the appellant is totally a third party and partner of the son of the original tenant. Merely because the appellant has paid the arrears of rent and he is still running business in the schedule premises that itself would not create any vested right in favour of the appellant. Therefore, I we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the appellant is at liberty to file appropriate application before the second respondent herein seeking transfer of the allotment of schedule premises in his favour and on such application being filed, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to the contesting parties. No order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO __________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 18.9.2008 mrb