THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.777 of 2008 Date: 22.01.2008 Between: Bilquis Begum … Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderbad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mohd. Zia-Ul-Haque Counsel for respondents 1&2: Assistant Government Pleader for Forest THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.777 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her malgi bearing No.5-2-73, Jambagh Road, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s husband was allegedly the tenant of respondent No.3 in premises bearing No.5-2-73. She claims that after the death of her husband, she took over the business running in the name and style of Hyderabad Flower Mark. In the affidavit she averred that respondent No.3, who is the landlord, filed suit for eviction against her and R.C.No.282 of 2000 filed by him was dismissed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderbad on 29.07.2004 and appeal, namely, R.A.No.204 of 2004 filed by respondent No.3 before the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was also dismissed on 29.10.2007. The petitioner asserts that she has been paying rent to respondent No.3 regularly. She further averred that in order to ensure her eviction, respondent No.3 gave consent to respondent No.2 for taking over the premises for the purpose of road widening from Putli Bowli Junction to Mozamjahi Market Road, Hyderbad and that based on the said consent given by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 promised the former to pay compensation and allow additional FSI to him. Heard Sri Mohd. Zia-Ul-Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest for respondent Nos.1 and 2. As regards right of the respondents-Municipal Corporation to acquire the land without the consent of the tenant in occupation of the premises, the same is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. It was held therein that the tenant having a statutory right to occupy the leased premises, the Corporation cannot forcibly dispossesses him/her based on the consent given by the landlord under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot dispossess the petitioner either without obtaining her consent or invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act for acquiring the land. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioner, if she is still continuing in occupation of the premises as a tenant and subject to her producing evidence to the effect that she is a lawful tenant of respondent No.3, without either her consent or following the procedure prescribed under Section 147 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.925 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.01.2008 ES [1] 2001 (3) ALD 173 (DB)