HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11485 of 2010 31st May 2010 Between: G.Mohan Rao … PETITIONER(S) and The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Admn., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11485 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Petitioner claims to have been initially granted lease of a wooden bunk over the land belonging to the second respondent. He claims to have been paying the lease rentals periodically. He refers to a notice issued on 08.10.2002 informing him that the lease period had expired and that he should enter into a lease agreement. It is his case that he entered into a lease agreement; the said agreement has been extended from time to time; and is in force as on date. On being asked whether he could produce a copy of the lease agreement, which the petitioner claims to be subsisting as on date, Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a similar notice has been issued even in 2009 and the very fact that the petitioner has paid rentals every month through E-Seva was itself proof that the Corporation continued to treat the petitioner as a lessee. This Court is saved the trouble of examining whether payments made through E-Seva would constitute an oral lease between the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner in as much as Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, even if it were to be held that there is no subsisting lease as on date, since the petitioner continues to remain in occupation of the shop in question, the Corporation should at least have put him on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard before action was taken to evict him from possession of the shop. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, would readily agree to this course of action. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the second respondent to put the petitioner on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, if need be, initiate proceedings to evict him from the shop in question. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 31st May 2010 CVRK Note: Issue copy in one week. B/o CVRK