IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO DATE: 17.04.2026 Between:

K.V.R. Murthy and others …. Petitioners and The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Aministration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Anil Komi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing final Notice No.R.O./1140/2013, dated 07/09.11.2015, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently quash the same by directing respondent No.2 to renew the lease in terms of the earlier lease deed, on such terms and conditions as respondent No.2 fixes in accordance with law, and to pass such other order or orders.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has constructed a shopping complex, by namely ‘IDMST Municipal Complex’, at Old Bus Stand area, Wanaparthy, wherein the 1st petitioner educational institution had taken on lease shops bearing Municipal Nos.C-1 to C-4 halls, on a monthly rent basis. Similarly, petitioner Nos.2 to 10 have also taken shops on lease, in the said premises and are running their respective business therein, and their respective lease periods were expired from the year 2014 onwards. While the matter stood thus, all the petitioners have made individual applications seeking extension of their respective leases for a further period.

4. Pending consideration of the said applications, respondent No.2 has issued final notices No.R.O./1140/2013, dated 07/09.11.2015 to the respective petitioners by directing them to pay the rent within three (3) days from the date of receipt of the said notice and handover the shops to the respondent No.2- Municipality immediately, otherwise, they are personally held responsible for the action whichever taken by the respondent No.2-Municipality against the petitioners and the shops will be ceased as per Rules in force without any further intimation. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.2, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Per contra, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that in fact, the lease period had already expired in the year 2014, and there are arrears of lease rents to be paid by the petitioners and subsequently, no fresh lease deed has been executed in favour of petitioners. In that view of the matter, final notices No.R.O./1140/2013, dated 07/09.11.2015 were issued directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent and to handover the vacant possession of shops to the Municipality.

6. Even as per the assertion of petitioners, their respective lease deeds have expired in the year 2014 itself. In that view of the matter, once the lease period is expired, the renewal will be at the discretion of respondent No.2- Municipality, and it is up to the Municipality to consider the extension of lease period by enhancing the individual terms and conditions, and if there are any arrears of rents payable by some of the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Municipality is entitled to recover the same from the petitioners, who have in occupation of the leased premises.

7. In that view of the matter, though the Writ Petition is not maintainable for the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition, however, to meet the ends of justice, the respondent No.2-Municipality is at liberty to extent the leases, if they are intend to do so, and they are at liberty to recover the arrears of rents by following due process of law, and in the event, if respondent No.2 is not interested to renew the leases, they are at liberty to pass the appropriate orders and take possession of the respective premises by following due process of law.

8. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to c