O R D E R:

The Writ Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the leased premises without following due process of law and consequently set aside the notice dt.04.12.2019 issued by the respondents.

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner engaged in selling furniture under the name and style of Sri Ganesh Sai Electronics (Grand Furniture’s) in the shop situated in Baristar Kaviraja Kalamandiram in Block No.15, Revenue Ward No.15, Anjaneyapeta, Gudivada town, Krishna District, which she obtained under an oral lease agreement with one Tripuraneni Bhanu Prasad, who is the representative of Baristar Kaviraja Kalamandiram, for a period of 10 years from 24.10.2018 to 24.10.2028. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the petitioner renovated the aforesaid Kalamandiram by spending Rs.14,65,000/-. The lease amount was determined as Rs.15,000/- per month and the said amount shall be set off from the amount invested by her.

(b) The said Kalamandiram was established in the year 1961 with an object to promote public meetings and performances. The Society was formed in the name of Kaviraja Sahitya Viharam vide its certification No.77/1961. The lessor is the son of Tripuraneni Seshagiri Rao. The said Seshagiri Rao was a member of the Society. The said Kalamandiram was constructed about 60 years back. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.F.S.1285, Revenue Department, Dt.04.11.1966, whereunder, a site in an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No.133/1 was allotted for construction of Kaviraja Sahitya Viharam for the purpose of holding public meetings and performances. The G.O. copy of which is available with the petitioner is not clearly legible. Prima facie it would appear from that G.O. that the land was allotted to Kalamandiram in the name of Baristar Tripuraneni Rama Swamy Chowdary for holding public meetings and performances. In pursuance of the grant, the Society conducted the Kalamandiram for some time and thereafter, the representative i.e. Bhanu Prasad gave the premises for lease after it became dilapidated. At that time, the petitioner renovated the Kalamandiram by investing about Rs.15,00,000/- and obtained oral lease from the representative-Bhanu Prasad.

(c) The petitioner has been paying the taxes in the name of Baristar Kaviraja Kalamandiram to the Municipality without any default. At present Rs.80,00,000/- worth of stock is lying in the said Kalamandiram.

(d) While so, the 4th Respondent issued impugned notice dt.04.12.2019 in Rc.A1/1446/2016 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises immediately. The said notice is illegal and without any jurisdiction as the respondents have no power or Authority to evict the petitioner from the lease hold premises. The petitioner learnt that similar notice was issued to Tripuraneni Seshagiri Rao, however, the said Seshagiri Rao died and his son Bhanu Prasad has given premises on lease to the petitioner. The respondents-Authorities should establish their right in the subject property at first and then only they can issue notice. Without proving their right, they cannot take any action against the petitioner.

Hence, the Writ Petition declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice dt.04.12.2019 as illegal and for consequential direction.

3. The 3rd Respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition as follows:

(a) As per G.O.Ms.No.1285, Revenue Department, dt.04.11.1966, an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in R.S.No.133/1 of Gudivada town was alienated to Kaviraja Sahitya Viharam, Gudivada for the services of Kaviraju Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Chowdary with the following conditions:

i. The land shall be used for the construction of a town hall and for no other purpose.

ii. No other building shall be constructed on the land without previous permission of the District Collector/2nd Respondent.

iii. The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any building therein, in the event of the infringement of an