HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24666 of 2010 Date 04.10.2010 Between: Asa Yadagiri. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep. By Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Smt D.Pramada Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24666 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner averred that he was allotted 40 sq. yards of land in the year 2000 by respondent No.3 for running a Xerox and STD Shop. The said site is stated to be part of the premises of respondent No.3’s office. The petitioner claimed that he has spent about Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- for raising a temporary shed. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the demand for STD has come down, he has put up a tea-stall and slowly converted the same into a tiffin center paying Rs.250/- per month as rent. By the impugned notice dated 30.08.2010, respondent No.3 has called upon the petitioner to handover vacant possession on or before 30.09.2010 as respondent No.3 is seeking to call for tender. At the hearing Ms D.Pramada, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the notice was issued in the name of Sri Sadanand, who is only the worker of the petitioner. She further stated that though ten years period of lease has expired, respondent No.3 should have considered extension of lease on increased rent. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the copy of the lease proceedings. In the absence of which, this Court is unable to appreciate the right of the petitioner to retain possession of the leased premises after expiry of the lease period. As the property admittedly belongs to the office of respondent No.3, its owner is entitled to utilize the property in the manner which serves its interest better. No provision of law is cited before this Court to show that the petitioner is entitled for extension of lease. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the notice was served on his worker, in my opinion, this fact by itself would not invalidate the notice because the petitioner has come into the possession of the notice and is made aware of the proposed action initiated by respondent No.3. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground for interference. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3 within a period of one week from today. He shall consider the representation, if any received, and decide whether the petitioner is entitled for renewal of lease or not. If the petitioner is not physically dispossessed so far, he shall not be evicted till an order is passed and communicated to him. Till the petitioner is continued in possession, he shall pay the rents. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.31567 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04.10.2010 usd