THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition Nos.25456, 25457 and 25458 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioners herein claim that they were granted leasehold rights of the shops bearing D.Nos.16/2/36 (4), 16/2/36 and 16/2/38 respectively situated at Bose Road, Tenali, Guntur District, belonging to the 2nd respondent institution namely Sri Kakamanu Sankaruni Dharma Satram, Tenali, for a period of three years, in pursuance of the auctions conducted in the year 2001, and that, even after expiry of lease, they are continuing in occupation of the subject shops, by paying monthly rents at enhanced rates. They state that they requested the 2nd respondent to renew the lease in their favour, but without considering their request and in spite of the fact that they are paying the monthly rents at enhanced rates regularly, the respondents filed applications in O.A.Nos.83, 84 and 85 of 2007, before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, alleging them as encroachers and seeking their eviction from the subject shops, and the Tribunal allowed the said O.As., by separate orders dated 04.09.2010, directing them to vacate the subject shops and handover the possession thereof to the respondents, within one month, and in default, the 1st respondent was directed to effect their eviction with the police aid and deliver the possession of the subject shops to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, they filed the present writ petitions, challenging the said orders passed by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Admittedly, the lease in favour of the petitioners expired and the same is not renewed. Merely because they are paying the monthly rents, the petitioners cannot claim to be lawfully entitled for being in occupation of the subject shops. Thus, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in initiating proceedings for eviction of the petitioners from the subject shops as also the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, directing the petitioners to vacate the subject shops. However, considering the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the subject shops since long time and eking out livelihood by conducting businesses therein, as agreed to by the learned counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under: “The 2nd respondent is directed to conduct fresh auction, for auctioning the leasehold rights of the subject shops, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that, till the persons, in whose favour the leasehold rights of the subject shops will be granted in pursuance of the said auction, occupy the subject shops, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue in occupation thereof, subject to payment of rents as fixed therefor.” With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th October, 2010 IBL