THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1040 of 2008 Date: 29.01.2008 Between: Syed Noor Mukaram Ali … Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1040 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the premises bearing Municipal No.4-1-710, Safar Khan Tavela Wakf, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was allegedly the tenant of respondent No.4 in premises bearing No.4-1-710. He claims that he is running the business under the name and style of M/s.Gulnar Company. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that respondent No.4 appointed respondent No.5 as Muthawali of the Wakf Institution on 10.10.2005. He paid rents to respondent No.4 from 1991 to December, 2005 and is paying rents thereafter, to respondent No.5 regularly. He further averred that the staff of respondent Nos.1 to 3 visited the premises in question and directed him to vacate the same for demolishing on the ground that the same is required for road widening purpose. Heard Sri A.M.Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. As regards the right of respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to acquire the land without the consent of the tenant in occupation of the premises, the same is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. It was held therein that the tenant having a statutory right to occupy the leased premises, the Corporation cannot forcibly dispossesses him/her based on the consent given by the landlord under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot dispossess the petitioner either without obtaining his consent or invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act for acquiring the land. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to dispossess the petitioner, if he is still continuing in occupation of the premises as a tenant and subject to his producing evidence to the effect that he is a lawful tenant of respondent No.4, without either his consent or following the procedure prescribed under Section 147 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.1244 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2008 kvni [1] 2001 (3) ALD 173 (DB)