THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1814, 1971, 1976 and 2113 of 2008 Dated 11th July, 2011 Between: Shaik Anees …Petitioner (W.P.No.1814 of 2008) And The A.P.Housing Board, rep.by its Vice Chairman, Gruha Kalpa, Hyderabad and another …Respondents (W.P.No.1814 of 2008) Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.Sarath Kumar and Sri V.Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondents: Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This batch of writ petitions is filed for a certiorari to quash similar but separate orders, dated 29.10.2007, passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 has leased one shop each in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest situated at Mahboobgunj, Hyderabad on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The lease period was five years from the date of execution of the rental agreement. All the lessees and their successors-in-interest have continued to occupy the demised premises despite expiry of lease periods. The Executive Engineer of respondent No.1 has issued individual notices to the petitioners, wherein it was informed that respondent No.1 is not intending to renew the leases and called upon the occupants to vacate the shops in their occupation. As the premises were not vacated, further notices were issued granting one-month time for vacation of the premises. After the expiry of the notice period, respondent No.2 has passed separate orders of eviction under Section 52(1) of the A.P.Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed their respective CMAs in the Court of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said CMAs having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. At the hearing, Sri S.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that respondent No.2 has not followed proper procedure in passing the orders of eviction. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were not permitted to let-in evidence in support of their plea and respondent No.2 has followed a summary procedure in ordering the petitioners’ eviction. The learned counsel further submitted that even though the petitioners were offered to buy the premises in their respective occupation, as they were poor, they could not meet the terms and conditions, subject to which the said offer was made, and that instead of re-considering those terms and conditions and granting reasonable time for their compliance, respondent No.2 has passed the orders of eviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 56 of the Act, which prescribes procedure and powers of Competent Authority and Appellate Authority in respect of the proceedings before them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to Rule 34 of the A.P.Housing Board Rules, 1959 (for short ‘the Rules’) to buttress his submission that both the Authorised Officer and the Court below should have allowed the petitioners to let-in evidence. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners were offered to buy the premises on certain terms and that due to their inability, they could not accept the said offer and that respondent No.2 ought to have continued the petitioners by extending further time, I do not find any merit therein. As observed by the Court below, mere offer of sale of the premises at an earlier point of time is not a ground to plead that the petitioners have a right to continue in the premises. The petitioners not being able to accept the offer made by respondent No.1, they cannot be allowed to remain in the premises after the expiry of the lease period. The order passed by respondent No.2 is in consonance with the provisions of Section 52(1) of the Act and therefore, I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned orders. As regards the second submission, under Section 52(1) of the Act, if the Competent Authority is inter alia satisfied that the person authorised to occupy the premises has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which, he is authorised to occupy such premises, it can give one month notice for vacating the premises from the date of its service and under sub-clause (2) thereof, if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority may after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard confirm such order and evict that person from, and take possession of the premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Section 56 of the Act provides that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and subject thereto, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Rule 34 of the Rules envisages that the Appellate Authority shall follow the procedure prescribed indicated in the sub-clauses mentioned thereunder. This Rule does not prescribe any specific procedure for the Competent Authority to follow in cases of orders to be passed under Section 52 of the Act. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 has issued individual notices to the petitioners and considered the explanations submitted by them. Respondent No.2 not being a civil Court is not governed by the elaborate procedure prescribed under the CPC. The provisions of CPC are made applicable to the proceedings before it to the extent indicated in the Rules referred to above. Therefore, unless the petitioners have produced any material in support of their respective pleas, it is not obligatory or incumbent upon respondent No.2 to conduct a full-fledged trial by permitting oral evidence being let-in. Such a procedure is alien to the proceedings before the Authorities not exclusively governed by the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any merit. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, the interim orders, if any granted in these writ petitions, shall stand vacated and the interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th July, 2011 VGB