IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5425 OF 2026

07.04.2026 Between:

Smt. Andela Vijaya Laxmi & others ….. Petitioners And Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), Rep. by its Secretary, Delhi & others.

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioners are the owners of premises bearing Municipal No.1-2-288/13/1 Ganagamahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the scheduled premises). The said premises was originally leased out in favour of Smt. Kavita Oberoi in 1973 for running a gas godown under the name and style of Amar Gas Services; rent was enhanced from time to time and the present monthly rent payable is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). After expiry of the original lease, the arrangement between Petitioners and Respondent No.4 continued as a month-to-month tenancy in the absence of any stamped or registered lease document, in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Petitioners assert that Respondent No.4, which is presently a partnership firm consisting of Kavita Oberoi, Narayana Raju and Krishna Markurthi, continued in occupation of the premises, and that Kavita Oberoi expired on 21.01.2025.

1.1. It is stated, in the absence of any stamped or registered lease document, the occupation of Respondent No.4 can only be construed as permissible possession or a month-to- month tenancy in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The relationship between Petitioners and Respondent No.4 dates back to 1973, and after the expiry of the original lease, the arrangement continued only as an oral month-to-month tenancy, and the status of Respondent No.4 changed from a proprietary concern to a partnership firm consisting of Kavita Oberoi, Narayana Raju and Krishna Markurthi. It is stated further, Petitioners decided not to continue the tenancy and accordingly, issued a quit notice dated 29.05.2025 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the month-to-month tenancy by giving thirty days clear notice and calling upon Respondent No.4 to surrender possession of the premises. The said quit notice was also brought to the notice of Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondent No.4 issued reply dated 16.06.2025, which did not address the termination of tenancy and dealt only with extraneous issues.

1.2. Respondent No.4, on baseless allegations of threats, instituted O.S.No. 758 of 2025 on 01.07.2025 before the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an order restraining Petitioners from dispossessing it from the scheduled premises otherwise than by due process of law, and also filed I.A.No.279. of 2025 seeking interim injunction. Petitioners filed counter and written statement in the said suit denying the allegations that they intended to evict Respondent No.4 contrary to law. The Civil Court, by order dated 24.11.2025 granted injunction restraining dispossession of Respondent No.4 except by due process of law, while specifically clarifying that Petitioners are not precluded from evicting Respondent No.4 in accordance with law. Petitioners did not challenge the said order as they never intended to evict Respondent No.4 otherwise than in accordance with law.

1.3. It is stated, the storage and supply of LPG cylinders are governed by the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, and gas cylinders fall within the definition of ‘explosives’ under the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder prescribe the procedure for grant and renewal of licence. Under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016, an Application for grant or renewal of licence is required to be made in Form C, which mandates documentary proof of "legal and physical possession" of the premises, including ownership proof as contemplated under Rule 49(2)(5), and other relevant provisions including Rules 44 and 53. A combined reading of the 1884 Act, the 2016