APHC010084572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-27 [3552]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 198 of 2026 Ganapa Rama Rao and Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)

**********

Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Rajulapati Praveen Kumar appearing vice Mr. B V Anjaneyulu Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. S.V.S.S.Sivaram, SC For VMC CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 16^th March 2026 P C :

The present writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 15.07.2025, passed in W.P. No.17613 of 2025. The writ petition filed by the petitioners herein challenging the eviction notice, dated 27.05.2025, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners appear to have been inducted as lessees in commercial establishments as early as in the year 1999 for a period of three years, which period got extended from time to time. The outer limit, which is permissible in terms of Section 148(3) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, is only 25 years. Post the expiry of 25 years outer period which was permissible for a lessee to continue in the business establishment, the Corporation is stated to have issued a tender notice, dated 19.01.2026, inviting bids from eligible parties for occupying the said premises on lease basis.

In the interregnum, the Corporation with a view to get the premises vacated, issued notices to the petitioners, one of which was notice, dated 27.05.2025. The petitioners preferred writ petition challenging the notices impugned before the learned single Judge, who by virtue of the judgment and order has dismissed the petition by placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 16.06.2017, titled Kotha Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2017 (5) ALD 94, which inter alia held that the extension of lease if at all would be permissible only up to a maximum period of 25 years and that it would be beneficial for the Municipality/Corporation to conduct a public auction for grant of leasehold rights.

3. Reliance upon this Division Bench judgment was placed by the learned single Judge despite the contention of the petitioners that the notices ought not to have been issued when the petitioners had obtained leases of the shops in question in an open auction and that the lease money was being paid from time to time.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants appearing before us has been unable to satisfy us as to how the judgment suffered from any illegality much less perversity in the view that has been expressed. We do not find any merit in the present writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Appeal No:198 of 2026 DATE : 16.03.2026 AKN