THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23954 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a lessee in respect of a Cinema Theatre, owned by the Nalgonda Municipality. The lease commenced in the year 1978, and it is continuing with certain changes, as to the amount of lease, etc. Proceedings ensued before various authorities and Courts, as regards the desirability of continuing the petitioner as lessee. It ultimately resulted in dismissal of S.L.P.No.27670 of 2009, on 09-11-2009. The net result is that the petitioner is under obligation to vacate the premises. The 1st respondent issued memo dated 20-10-2009, directing the Municipality, the respondent No.4, to conduct auction of leasehold rights in respect of the building. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing such direction. According to the petitioner, such a course would be contrary to Section 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Consequential directions are also sought. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the petitioner has no right to continue as a lessee, in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6354 of 2009. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. It appears that the 4th respondent as such did not initiate any steps to terminate the lease, that existed in favour of the petitioner. The application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the lease is said to be pending approved and clearance, with the 1st respondent. The lease however, stood terminated, as a result of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6354 of 2009. The petitioner filed SLP against that judgment, and it is represented that the SLP has since been dismissed. The 1st respondent has naturally directed respondents 2 to 4 to take steps to put the leasehold rights to auction. No exception can be taken to the same. The small controversy is, as to the steps to be taken before the leasehold rights are auctioned. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running the theatre. It is not in dispute that the machinery and furniture is owned and installed by the petitioner. If he is required to vacate the theatre, by removing the vast machinery and equipment, before the auction is conducted, several complications would arise. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the auction. If he emerges as the highest bidder, the expenditure incurred by him, for removing the machinery, would go waste. On the other hand, if the theatre is put to auction, in the present condition, no prejudice would be caused to anyone. In the event of the petitioner is not being declared as the highest bidder, he may be required to remove the machinery and equipment within the stipulated time. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) the respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct auction of the leasehold rights for the building in question, without requiring the petitioner to remove the machinery and equipment; b) in case the petitioner emerges as the highest bidder, he shall be entitled to continue as lessee, on fresh terms; c) if the petitioner does not emerge as the highest bidder, he shall be under obligation to remove the equipment and machinery, within a period of six weeks from the date on which, the lease, in favour of the highest bidder, is confirmed; and d) till this exercise is undertaken, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as a lessee on the existing terms. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-11-2009. KO