THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24797 of 2011 Dated 28th September, 2011 Between: Khateeb Mohd Ayub …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Mahabubnagar Municipality at Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Praveen Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi For Mrs.Shanthi Neelam The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, in whose favour vacant site admeasuring 175 sq.yards was given on lease by the respondent for a period of three years from 2010 feels aggrieved by notice, dated 16.06.2011, issued by the respondent, calling upon him to remove shed and fencing laid on the leased land. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he has inter alia admitted grant of lease, but he has taken the stand that he has not granted any permission for erection of shed and laying fence. It is also stated that the petitioner has not entered into an agreement for taking possession and payment of lease amount. The petitioner has filed photographs, which show that in the vacant site, he has raised a small shed with wooden pillars and tin sheets serving as roof and stored some steel material for the purpose of running the hardware and paints business. The photographs also show existence of some fence extended upto one of the gates. From the perusal of these photographs, this Court is convinced that the structure raised by the petitioner is purely temporary intended for the purpose of running the business for which the site is taken on lease. Raising of such a structure, in my opinion, cannot be construed as violation of law. As regards the stand of the respondent that the petitioner has not so far entered into lease agreement and has not paid the rents, the respondent shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law if the same constitutes breach of the conditions subject to which the lease has been granted. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceeding is set aside. The petitioner shall not raise any further structure and also shall not claim equities at the time of vacating the site at the end of the lease period. He shall remove the structure raised by him restoring the site to the same position as existed at the time of taking over possession, at the time of handing over the possession of the property to the respondent. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30488 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th September, 2011 VGB