IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 3165 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Ganesh Wines, rep by its Prop. J. Jagidshwar Rao S/o J. Mallaiah Shop No. 2 bearing Door No. 12-8-402/A, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 2 M/s. Sai Bkery, rep by its Prop. O. Prabhakar S/o O. Sattai Shop No. 2 bearing Door No. 12-8-402/A, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The STate of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Secunderabad. 3 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep by its Commissioner & Spl. Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 the City Planner (N/Z), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaringthe action fo the 3rd & 4th respondnet in trying todemolish the permises bearign No. 12-8- 402/A shop No.2 & 1 respectively, situated at Mettuguda, Secunderabad without issue of any notce as contemplated under sec. 146 & 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Ratio of the judgement of Division Bench reported in 2001 (3) ALD page 173 as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide and violative of principles of natural jsutice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : Oral order: The petitioners claim to be the tenants of the premises bearing Door No.12-8-402/A, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. In the premises, the landlord had constructed commercial shops. The 1st petitioner is the occupant of shop No.2 and the 2nd petitioner of shop No.1. According to the 1st petitioner he obtained a licence for retail vending of alcoholic beverages from the 2nd respondent, valid till 30-6-2008. While so, the 3rd respondent with a view to widen the road from Tarnaka junction to Hyderabad Public School approached the landlord and the landlord gave consent for acquisition of the property and demolition of the structures therein, on certain terms agreed upon between the landlord and the 3rd respondent- Corporation. Claiming to be tenants and therefore to a participatory interest in the process of acquisition, the writ petition is filed, alleging dispossession by the 3rd respondent without notice to the petitioners. Along with the writ petition, is filed a document purporting to be a lease agreement between the landlord one Mukunda Rao and the 1st petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-, the duration of the tenancy under this agreement was during 1-7-2006 for 11 months with an option of renewal for a further period of two years on mutually agreed upon terms. Admittedly, this document is not registered. Sub-section (d) of Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) has been amended by A.P. Act No.4 of 1999. With effect from the date of amendment, all leases of immovable property are compulsorily registerable. It is well established that no un-registered document compulsorily registerable under the provisions of the Act is admissible in evidence nor conveys any rights thereunder. In view of the fact that there is no registered lease between the petitioners and the landlord, though the document is in writing on stamp paper, on an interactive application of the provisions of Section 17 (1) (d) read with Section 49 of the Act, the petitioners cannot be considered to be lawful tenants of the premises in question. They are mere occupiers of the premises. Whether the landlord can dispossess them without following the due process of law is another question, not relevant in this writ petition. The 3rd respondent, in exercise of the power of eminent domain and by a process of negotiation with the owner of the premises, has taken steps to acquire a portion of the premises and to demolish the structures, on payment of certain compensation to the landlord on terms mutually agreeable to the 3rd respondent and the landlord. The petitioners, on the aforesaid analysis, as mere occupants of the property, cannot claim any participatory entitlements in the process of acquisition of the property by the 3rd respondent. Since they claim to be in physical possession of the shops in the premises in question, the 3rd respondent may, as a model instrumentality of the State, issue them a notice of two weeks duration to afford the petitioners an opportunity to arrange their affairs within the said period of two weeks, to vacate the premises. The writ petition is dismissed with the observations above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21st February, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies