HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA WRIT PETITION No.5991 of 2025 Between M/s Tirumala Medical General &Surgicals Rep. by its Managing Partner M. Ramanaiah …… Petitioner AND

1. The State of Telangana, and 4 others …….Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 12.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes / No May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes / No to Law Reports/Journals:

3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes / No of the Judgment?

_________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5991 of 2025 % 12.09.2025 # 1. M/s Tirumala Medical General &Surgicals Rep. by its Managing Partner M. Ramanaiah ……Petitioner Versus $ 1. The State of Telangana, and4 others ….. Respondents GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : P. Nagesh ^ Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Medical, Health & Family Welfare ? Cases referred

1(1996) 4 SCC 144

2Civil Appeal No.223 of 2022 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5991 of 2025

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that Respondent No. 5-Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, is attempting to evict him unlawfully. The petitioner specifically challenges the impugned eviction notice dated 14.02.2025, issued under the Telangana Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. He asserts that his continued occupation of the premises, despite the expiry of the original lease, constitutes a tenancy "at will" and "holding over" under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the respondent's proper recourse is to pursue ejectment through the Transfer of Property Act, and not the Public Premises Act.

1.1 Brief facts of the case are that a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5 on 12.03.2011,for a two-year term commencing on that date and ending on 11.03.2013, for the purpose of running a medical shop. Following the lease's expiry, the petitioner states that his tenancy continued on a different legal footing. Due to persistent interference from Respondent No. 5, the petitioner initiated legal action by filing a suit for perpetual injunction, registered as O.S. No. 288 of 2015, in the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The petitioner emphasizes that a Status Quo order was passed in the suit and that order is in force, the trial has commenced, and the suit is still pending. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 5 issued its first formal notice under the Public Premises Act on 05.11.2024. The petitioner replied to the notice on 18.11.2024. Respondent No. 5 then issued the primary notice under challenge, dated 14.02.2025, invoking Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act and demanded the petitioner show cause within ten days why an eviction order should not be made against the petitioner. The petitioner replied to this second notice on 22.02.2025.

1.2 The petitioner's primary allegation is that Respondent No. 5 lacks the legal standing (locus standi) to invoke the Public Premises Act. He contends that the respondent is neither a corporation, local authority, company, nor a duly appointed estate officer as defined in Sections 2(d) and (h) of the Public Premises Act, intended for authorities like the GHMC or HMDA. Furthermore, the respondent has slept over on its rights, having regularly accepted the admitted monthly rent of Rs. 1,19,609, and is now attempting to use the wrong provision of law to circumvent the ongoing Civil Suit. The petitioner contends that after deducting a 22-month COVID-19 period during which the hospital was exclusively for COVID care and business was stalled, the actual arrears owed to the respondent are Rs. 33,00,000, not the full amount claimed. He further states that the respondent holds a security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and separately owes the petitioner Rs. 8,00