THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.25684 of 2006 BETWEEN: Donthireddi Sambi Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Errabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mangalam, Guntur District. PETITIONER And 1. The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada – 1, Krishna District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. V. Uma Devi Counsel for the respondents: Smt. G. Jhansi The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, claiming to be a lessee of the Respondent No.1, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the removal of his name from the records of the 1st Respondent-Corporation as a lessee and incorporating the name of the 3rd Respondent in his place as illegal and consequently hand over the possession of the premises to the petitioner. Way back in the year 1958, the father of the petitioner Late Venkat Reddy was allotted shop bearing No.L.14 by the then Vijayawada Municipality in the Market viz., Kaleswara Rao General Market, Vijayawada. Later, the shop was transferred in favour of the petitioner’s mother Smt. D. Anjamma. On her death on 10.07.1978, the petitioner has been permitted to carry on the business in the said shop. New market complex was constructed after demolishing the old complex. The petitioner was accommodated in the new complex by allotting shop No.217. It is stated that the petitioner has also paid goodwill amount for such allotment. The third respondent falsely set up a claim for the shop and filed a suit in O.S.No.389 of 2004 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement alleged to have been executed in his favour by the petitioner. Initially, temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.366 of 2004 on 17.04.2004 and the same was vacated by orders dated 01.09.2004. the 3rd respondent challenged the said orders by filing an appeal in C.M.A.No.17 of 2004 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the same was also dismissed by orders dated 16.04.2005. The said order was again confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2534 of 2005 dated 20.09.2007. All through the petitioner was denied possession on the ground that the claim made by the 3rd respondent was pending adjudication in the Courts. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the 3rd respondent was a mere imposter and the 1st respondent ought not to have taken cognizance of the 3rd respondent and denied possession to the petitioner. Heard Sri S.R. Sanku instructed by Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute as is evident from the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3410 of 2003 dated 14.08.2003 that there was no request from the petitioner to transfer the shop in favor of the 3rd respondent, who claimed himself to be the clerk of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner could have been inducted into possession in the normal course. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that in as much as there is a private dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent since a long time, and cases pending between them in various courts for adjudication of the right of the petitioner vis-à-vis the right of the 3rd respondent, the corporation is not in a position to act until the dispute is resolved. It is therefore evident that there is no unwillingness on the part of the 1st respondent to restore the possession to the petitioner but for the fact that there was a dispute pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the suit instituted by the 3rd respondent ended in dismissal by a judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006 and the same has attained finality. The petitioner asserts that there is no other case pending as on date between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. That being so, in the ordinary course, the petitioner is entitled to be inducted into possession. However, the 1st respondent obviously has no material before him as to the disposal of the suit and finality of the litigation. In the circumstances, the following order is passed. 1. The petitioner is directed to file a representation along with a copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.389 of 2004 stating that no other dispute relating to the subject shop is pending between him and the 3rd respondent as on this day, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order; 2. On receipt of such representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and if he is convinced of the facts placed before him, he shall take necessary steps for delivery of possession of the shop to the petitioner as early as possibly preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 2nd February, 2011 Js.