IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 818 of 2007 Between: Balajee VUDA Shopping Complex Vartakula Sankshema Sangham (Regd. NO. 125/2006) Hastabal Veedhi, Door No. 17-9-21(L), Vizianagaram rep. by its Secretary Kolli Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkanna Hindu Printing press Thotapalem, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Sirupuram Junction, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Vice Chairman .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in directing the members of the petitioner Sangham issued in proceedings dated 5-1-2007 to hand over the vacant possession of the shops in their occupation in Balajee VUDA shopping complex, Hastabal Veedhi, Vizianagaram without giving an undertaking with regard to allotment of the shops to the existing tenants on its reconstruction as illegal arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondent not to evict the members of the petitioner sangham without giving the undertaking of the re-entry of the tenants after reconstruction of the building and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TADDI.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MRS.V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, a Society registered under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Public Societies Registration Act, seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings dated 05.01.2007 proposing to demolish the shops in Balajee VUDA shopping complex, highhandedly for the alleged purpose of reconstruction of complex, without evicting the tenants by following due process of law, and directing them to handover vacant possession of the shops in their occupation in Balajee VUDA shopping complex, Hastabal Veedhi, Viziaagaram, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit field in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the members of the petitioner-society are tenants in the aforesaid shopping complex for the past 20 years and they were granted licences from time to time in the said shopping complex. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent, with an intention of constructing a new shopping complex, is proceeding to evict its members without giving statutory benefit of redelivery of possession on reconstruction, in accordance with the provisions under Section 12 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. This writ petition is to be rejected for more reasons than one. It is to be seen that no lease is granted in favour of the petitioner-society. Earlier, the respondent issued licences to certain individuals permitting them to do business in the Shopping Complex in question. Notices were issued to the said individuals for vacating the shopping complex as the respondent intended to demolish the same pursuant to certification made by Civil Engineering Department. Further, the impugned notice is not issued to the petitioner-society, but issued to an individual by name Sri P. Ramana Rao. Therefore, the petitioner-society, which is neither a licensee nor a lessee, cannot seek any relief on the ground that the respondent-authority is taking steps for eviction of its members without giving statutory benefit of redelivery of possession on reconstruction, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the building in question is owned by the respondent-authority, which is a local authority, and in view of the provision under Section 32 of the Act, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and eviction Control Act, 1960 are not made applicable to any building belonging to the State Government or the Central Government or Cantonment board or any local authority. In view of the said provision, the petitioner society cannot claim any benefit for redelivery of possession after construction of new building as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that licences granted to the individuals were valid only upto 31.12.2006; therefore, on expiry of the said licences they were evicted on 09.01.2007 itself and in the place of the old building, a new building has already been constructed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to grant any relief as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the members of the petitioner-society were holding licensees prior to demolition of the old building, it is open to them to make applications to the respondent-authority for grant of licences/leases for any vacant shops. If any such applications are made, the same shall be considered keeping in view the licences granted to them earlier. No order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 23rd April, 2009 Js.