Point of Law: order or decree that is passed refusing to aid the petitioner/plaintiff etc., is a sufficient adjudication of his rights and thus compliance with the “due process of law”. The court in the very same proceeding can direct the tenant/lease holding over /person in possession etc., to vacate the premises or the property in a fixed time.

ORDER :

1. DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR EVICTION is an important issue that was raised in this case by the petitioner who filed this writ petition for the following relief:

“To issue an order writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents pasting slip to prevent the petitioner from operating the business of M/s G.Silver Spoon Restaurant and Entertainments land admeasuring 2256 Sq. Yds in Sy.No.1009 and nearby Door No 7-5-179 and ward No.18 of GVMC named as Amoeba Park in Beach Road, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and Violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India Provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, A.P.Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 and rules framed thereunder and is liable to be declared as illegal and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue his business operations in the premises till appropriate orders are passed on the petitioners proposal for renewal or extension of the lease pending with the Respondent No.1 Government in the interest of Justice and pass any such other order…”

2. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition was taken up for hearing as the counter was filed by the main answering respondent namely, respondent No.2 and a rejoinder was also filed.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent Municipal Corporation.

4. The case of the petitioner as briefly summarised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted a certain extent of land/premises on the Beach Road of Visakhapatnam for establishment of restaurant and other facilities. The lease was initially granted in 2010 and it was extended till 13.07.2018. After 13.07.2018, the lease was not extended and the petitioner’s representation for extension of the said lease is pending with the Government. This was followed up by a number of letters and representations, but the respondent did not formally extend the lease. The petitioner was however continuing in possession and enjoyment of the premises. Due to Hud-Hud cyclone, Covid and other factors, the petitioner states that he sustained huge losses. Therefore, because of his representations and the losses which he has sustained, the petitioner claims that he must be given extension of lease. He also points out that similarly placed persons were granted extension of the lease. It is also submitted that the premises is still in possession of the petitioner and that the respondents unilaterally pasted a notice stating that the premises is under the custody of the respondents. This action of the respondents is also questioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 50 families of the staff are dependent on the business of the petitioner for their livelihood. It is submitted that while the respondent has the right to develop the beach road for any project, virtually no work has been started in this area for beautification or improvement of the beach road. Therefore, learned counsel argues that this is a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to continue to operate food court from the premises. He also points out that the rent was also being paid regularly. The learned counsel in the alternate also submits as the “Beach Project” has not been grounded or started he should be allowed to stay in the premises till it is started atleast. Apart from this , learned counsel also argues lastly that even if eviction is to be carried out, it can also be done as per the due process of law which also includes the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Municipal Corporation Act.

5. In reply to this, learned standing counsel for the respondent in his usual style forcefully argues that the lease expired by efflux of time on 13.07.2018. Thereafter, on 29.09.2018, a notice was sent to vacate and handov