IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.13672 of 2010 Between: M.A.Lateef (died) per LRs., M.A.Aziz. … Petitioner And A.P. State Housing Board, reptd., by its Executive Engineer, Housing Central Division, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared. Counsel for the respondents: Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 22-3-2010 in CMA No.34 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming order, dated 25-1-2010, in Case No.21/CA/Central/07 of respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. The lease, which was originally granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, has expired in the year 2004 and, despite the same, the lessee continued to be in possession. After the death of the original lessee, the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the premises in question. Respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings, vide: Case No.21/CA/Central/07, for eviction of the original lessee. After giving an opportunity, respondent No.2 has passed order, dated 25-1-2010 directing his eviction. The petitioner filed CMA No.34 of 2010, which was also dismissed by the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by order, dated 22-3-2010. Questioning both these orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court order, dated 30-4-2010, in CRP No.1912 of 2010 of this Court, whereby identical orders passed by respondent No.2 and the Chief Judge, City Civil Court were confirmed in case of a similarly placed person and six months time was granted to him to vacate and hand over physical possession of the schedule premises to respondent No.1. Following the said order, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner had the benefit of being in possession of the property in question for 1½ years from the date of the order in the said CRP., it is felt appropriate that he shall be permitted to remain in possession for a period of three more months from today. On the expiry of the said period, respondent No.1 shall be free to take vacant possession of the said property from the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.17231 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21-9-2011 MNR