THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.39 of 2008 Dated 29th June, 2011 Between: Smt.Aalluri Munemma …Petitioner And The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Vijayawada …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for respondent: Smt.G.Jhansi The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the residential premises bearing No.G-3 (Door No.40-2-19), Sri Shiridi Sai Apartments, Raghuram Street, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada-10, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the above noted residential flat, that her husband is carrying on business of sarees and silver in the name and style of M/s.Sri Sai Sarees and Silvers at Shop No.16, Pioneer House, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, that in connection with the said business, his customers used to request for brining sarees to the above residential apartment and in that process, her husband used to bring sarees to home. It is further pleaded that on the complaint given by the neighbouring flat owners, the officials of the respondent-Corporation visited the premises and closed one of the rooms by placing lock and seal on the allegation that the petitioner is using the residential flat for commercial purpose for running a shop. The petitioner questioned this action of the respondent on the main ground that the same was not preceded by a notice and an opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia alleged that the petitioner is running a business in the name and style of M/s.Sri Sai Sarees and Silvers in the premises in question by illegally converting the residential apartment into a business establishment and that on the complaint received from the other residents of the apartment stating that inconvenience for parking vehicles is being caused, apart from violation of privacy of the residents, an inspection was made during which the complaint of the neighbours was found to be true and that as the petitioner was carrying on business without obtaining D & O Trade Licence in violation of the Zoning Regulations, the premises was sealed. It is further stated that the petitioner’s husband executed a letter of undertaking that he will shift the business within one month and will abide by any further action if the business is not shifted within the said period. It is also stated that in consideration of the said undertaking given by the petitioner’s husband, the locks were opened allowing the petitioner to use the premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not been using the premises for commercial use and that neither she nor her husband is running business at the residential apartment. In the light of the above stand taken by the petitioner and the fact that the locks are removed, no relief need be granted in this writ petition. It is, however, left open to the respondents to take appropriate action in the event the petitioner uses the residential apartment for commercial purpose without obtaining necessary permission in future. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 04.01.2008, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.40 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.537 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2011 VGB