IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17625 OF 2002 Between: Naredla Srinivas. … Petitioner AND Executive Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District. …Respondent This Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner entered into possession of the premises bearing No.15 at Manthani in Karimnagar District under a lease granted in his favour by the Gram Panchayat, Manthani. This lease was for a period of 11 months from 02-07-2001. The petitioner along with others established a wine shop in the subject premises under the license granted by the Excise authorities, which was valid upto 31-03-2003. Apprehending that the Manthani Gram Panchayat was taking steps to evict them from the subject premises upon expiry of the lease period, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, an application was made on 18-07-2002 to the Gram Panchayat for extension of the lease period but no orders were passed thereon. This Court, by interim order dated 16-09-2002, directed the respondent-Gram Panchayat to continue the petitioner in the subject premises on payment of Rs.300/- per month. The said order was made absolute on 26-12-2002 and the vacate stay application filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat was dismissed. 3. In its counter filed in support of the vacate application, the respondent-Gram Panchayat stated that the lease in favour of the petitioner was only upto May, 2002 and that he had no right to continue in possession thereafter. The Gram Panchayat further denied the averment of the petitioner that he had made a representation seeking extension of the lease. 4. The aforestated facts therefore demonstrate that the petitioner does not have even a figment of a legal right to continue in possession over the subject premises. His lease expired as long back as in the year 2002. The Excise license granted in his favour was also upto March, 2003. It is only by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court that the petitioner is perpetuating his possession over the leased premises well after the expiry of the lease period. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 10th February, 2011. AMD/KVS