THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.25149 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the tenant in respect of a room of 12x12 square feet owned by respondents 3 and 4 in D.No.51-1-6/1 of Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam District. The lease is said to be oral and commenced in the year 2000. Respondents 3 and 4 intended to construct a building on their site of about 500 square yards, which is in a triangular shape. R.C.C. No.29 of 2005 filed by respondents 3 and 4 for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam was allowed. However R.C.A.No.6 of 2006 filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was allowed. C.R.P.No.2144 of 2007 filed by respondents 3 and 4 was dismissed. Respondents 3 and 4 applied for permission to the 1st respondent to enable them to construct a stilt and ground plus three upper floors. Permission was accorded on 13.07.2009. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard Sri V.L.N.Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Aswin Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The only ground urged by the petitioner in challenge to the permission accorded to respondents 3 and 4 is that the existence of shop under his occupation was not shown in the plan. This however is not correct. A perusal of the plan sanctioned by the 1st respondent in favour of respondents 3 and 4 discloses that the room under the possession of the petitioner was very much shown and observation was made to the effect that it shall be removed in due course. The construction is being made in such a way that the premises under the occupation of the petitioner are not touched at all. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any grievance. On the other hand, respondents 3 and 4 have to incur huge expenditure. They have also lost an opportunity to construct a commercial complex on the strength of permission accorded to them in the year 2006, on account of the non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner or dispute raised by him. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.12.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.25149 of 2009 Date: 16.12.2009 JSU