THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21481 of 2007 Date: 22.02.2008 Between: M/s.Venkata Sai Granites & Marbles … Petitioner AND Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Venkat Mayur for Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondent: Smt.V.Preethi Reddy, Standing Counsel HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21481 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice dated 6.9.2007 by which the petitioner was called upon to vacate the shop in his possession on or before 10.12.2007 by removing all his belongings. Heard Sri Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was given shop room No.6 at Pithapuram Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam under licence. The existing license is valid up to 22.12.2008. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was called upon to surrender possession of the shop room. Sri Venkat Mayur submitted that the licence period is still subsisting and the impugned notice amounts to termination of the petitioner’s licence. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri K.Anand Babu, Secretary, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority – the respondent, it is stated inter alia that the building which was constructed in the year 1985 is in dilapidated condition and the respondent obtained technical expert’s report on 19.3.2005 wherein it was stated that the shopping complex is a single storied load bearing structure accommodating ten shops, that the roof slab reinforcement has corroded and concrete of slab is spalling causing damage of roof slab and that the technical expert recommended for dismantling the structure and constructing a new building with modern facilities. He also relied upon condition Nos.14 and 18 under which the respondent is entitled to terminate the licence and take possession of the property. Under condition No.14 of the licence, either of the parties is entitled to terminate the licence by giving the other party one month notice in advance. Similarly, under condition No.18 if the licencee violates any of the conditions of licence or if the premises is required by the licensor for any other purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the licence period has not expired, the licensor shall be entitled to terminate the licence and exercise the right of re-entry and take possession of the premises. The impugned proceedings and the averments in the counter affidavit show that the premises is required for its demolition and raising of a new structure. Since the licence conditions empower the respondent to take back the premises even before the expiry of licence period, I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the respondent, requisitioning the building during the subsistence of licence. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to say that after the building is re-constructed, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent for grant of fresh licence and the respondent there upon shall act in accordance with law. The petitioner is given 30 days’ time to vacate the premises. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27852 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22.02.2008 mdaa