The court has affirmed the right to lease extension under municipal rules while emphasizing due process in eviction proceedings.

[N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAL'fyA¥I',~,J\::A-;;''t:i (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15672 OF 2025 Betwee n :

M. Aravind, S/o. M. Rama Chandra Reddy, Aged 51 years, R/o. Door No.16/175, Dargamitta, P N Road, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District, A.P-

517644.

Petitioner AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Director of Mun-lcipaI Administration, Sri Krishna Enclave, 5th Lane, Annapurna Nagar Inner Ring Road, Gorantla, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Srikalahasti Municipal Commissioner, Rep by its Commissioner, Srika[ahasti, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.

Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3. And his staff not tQ take immediate action Of eViCtI'On against the PetitI'Oner from the Shop, and a-'Iso follow the due process of law.

lANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 not to take action against the Petitioner to evict him from the shop without issuing any vacate notice to the petitioner and also extend the renewal of lease to the petitioner for few more years and also follow the due process of law which is pending disposal of the above writ petition.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing. the petitl'on and the affidavit fl'led in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. VAJJA CHETHAN KUMAR REDDY Advocate for t'he Petitioner and of GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and of Sri. B. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, STANDING COUNSEL, for the Respondent No.3;

The Court made the following -ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Demand Notice dated 16.05.2025 in Roe.No.319/2005/Al calling upon the Petitioner to Pay the arrears Of rent Of Rs. 3,03,912/-and to vacate the-a-Chedule shop.

The Petitioner submits that the amount as demanded in the Notice was paid and aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in threatening the petitioner to vacate the schedule premises, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the enhanced rents in terms of Rule 12 of A.P.Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure), Rules 1968.

=i*

Learned Standing counsel for the Respondents seeks time to get instructions.

Having heard the respective counsel and consI-dering that there is a power tO the extension of lease under A.P.Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure), Rules 1968 providing extension of lease on enhancement of monthly rent at 33O/a providing under Rule 12 thereof, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:

i) The Respondents are directed to consider the extension of lease to the petitioner in terms of Rule 12 of A.P.Mun]'cipalitjes (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure), Rules 1968 by enhancing the rental amount by 331/3 0/a for a further period of

3 years-

ii) On such enhancement, the petitioner shall continue to pay the rents to the Respondent/ corporation without any default.

iii) Till consideration of extension of lease, the Respondent/

Corporation shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner.

Post on 25.07.2025- f\

SD/-N.NAGAMMA AS S ISTANTaesTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTIO