M/s.Tirumala Medical General and Surgica!-s v. Hvderabad, T.S

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 12.03.201.1, for atwo-year term , commencing on that date and ending on [ l'.03.2013, for the purpose of running a medical shop. Foltowing the lease's expiry, the petitioner states that his tenanOy 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 stilt 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(l) 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 on22.02.2025. \ \ ir, ii * -!i 2 NBK, J l'2 'fhe 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 fbr aurhorities like the GHMC or HMDA. Furthermore, the respondent has slept over on its rights, having regularly accepted the admiued monthly rent of Rs. r,rg,60g,and is now attempting to use the wrotlg provision of law to circumvent the ongoing Civil Suit. The petitioner cortends that after deducting a Z2-month covlD- l g period during which the hospital was exclusively fbr 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 ard separately owes the petitioner Rs. g,00,000 for medicines supplied under the Arogyasree scheme. The petitioner states that these facts are being couLntered by the respondent authority, through the impugned notices, by alleging that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of public premises following tht: lease expiry, and therefore trying to justify the eviction under the specific provisions of the Telangana public premises Act. 2' A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.S-superintendent and Convener of the Hospital Development Society of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, essentially contending that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant who has willfully overstayed his lease and is now resorting to litigation to evade his substantial financial obligations and to obstruct the implementat ion of government health pol icies.

2.1 The respondent contends that the original lease agreement commenced on 01.12.2010, for a two-year period at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,08,735, with a r0oz escaration in the second year,as per proceedings dated 01 -03.201 l; and the petitioner's right to occupy the prernises *aL_ __ / /i .:, -rln.lia,: .#-r.1 3 wp_5991_2025 NBK, J fundamentally extinguished by G.O.Ms. No. 54, Health Medical and Family Welfare (L2) Department, dated 04.03.2011. It is contended that the G..O.Ms.No.54 explicitly stipulates in Paragraph 5 that "the hospttals shall not renew the lease of the existing retail outlets selling branded medtcines in the hospital premises, when the current lease expires."

2.2 [n accordance with this G.O.Ms.No:54, the respondent's office issued a notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises before the lease's completion on 31.03.2013. The respondent alleges that upon receiving this notice, the petitioner fabricated false allegations by filing a suit in O.S. No. 288 of 2015, to prolong his unauthorized occupation.

2.3 The respondent contends that the petitioner's claim of being a tenant "at will" and "holding over", is barred by G.O.Ms. No. 54 and there cannot be any such deemed renewal or continuance. [t is also contended that the respondent has been a defaulter in paying monthly rents, and there are unpaid alrears of Rs. 2,45,21,376, thereby causing a huge loss to the government exchequer. Further, the petitioner's claim of financial hardship during the COVID-l9 pandemic is baseless, as all medical shops were operational and the petitioner, in fact, had a "ro.aring business" with high volume of customers as Gandhi Hospital was a Nodal Center. The respondent states that the representation of the petitioner for exemption of rent for the 22- month COVID period was formally rejected. It is contended that the respondent authorities have already processed a Cheque for Rs.50 iakhs to the petitioner, ffid therefore the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 owes a debt of Rs. 8,00,000 to the petitioner under the Arogyasree scheme, is without basis.

2.4 Furthermore, the respondent contends that the petitioner has deliberately filed the Suit, O.S.No.288 of 2015 with a mala fide intention to \o\ 4 wp_5991 NBK, J illegally squat over the subject premises and continue his business for over twelve years without a valid lease, all while earning crores of rupees. It is contended thert the rents obtained by the respondent authority from shops in the premises are used for funding hospital amenities, essential services, and emergency clrug ptrrchases. It is stated that the Hospital Development Committee ht:ld a meeting on 1 3 .03 .2 02I , to discuss on repurposing the subj ect premises occ'rpied by the petitioner, and the Committee resolved to establish a "Jeevendhara. Medical Store" to sell generic medicines at lower prices to poor patients, and the said resolution has not realised until now due to unauthorised occupation of the premises by the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. P. Nagesh, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare. Peruse<I the record. Learnr:d counsel forthe petitioner essentially assails the very invocation

4. of the Public Premises Act by Respondent No. 5 as a jurisdictional error. It is contended ttrat the respondent No.S-The Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital is neither a "corporation" nor a "local authority" as meticulously defined under Sections 2(d) & (h) of the Public Premises Act; and this statutory scheme was intended for entities like the GHMC or HMDA, not a Hospital Superintendent managing a single lease. It is contended that the respondent, forgetting the jural relationship of lessor and lessee established by the registered lease agreement dated 12.03 2011, is attempting to employ a wrong provision of law to bypass the civil cotrt proceedings in O.S. No. 288 of 2015.

4.1 Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Ccrurt in Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs. Traclcs Trade Private Limitedt , and contends thrt while this judgment rightly holds the Public Premises Act to be 1(1996) 4 SCC 144 / I I 5 wp_5991_2025 NBK, J a complete code, it unequivocally establishes that the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer is contingent upon one foundational, jurisdictional fact -- "the property must definitively be "public premises" as defined by the Act ". It is contended that the character of Respondent No. 5 is fundamentally disputed and does not fit within the strict confines of Section 2(d) of the Public Premises Act; and therefore, the entire edifice of the eviction proceedings, commencing with the initial notice dated 05.11 .2024 till the impugned notice, are void ab initio.

4.2. It is further contended that the petitioner is not an "unauthorized occupanflias defined by the Public Premises Act. The lease agreement, which commenced on 12.03.201 l, upon its expiry on I I .03.2013, transformed into a tenancy "at will" and "holding over" under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and this legal transition is evidenced by the respondent's own conduct, as they have slept over on their rights for years while regularly receiving the admitted monthly rent of Rs . l,lg,609, and therefore the respondent's belated and heavy- handed action, after years of acquiescence, is clearly a malafide intention to circumvent the ongoing civil suit proceedings. ' 4.3 It is also contended that the respondent's claim that the petitioner is due by an affears of Rs. 2,45,21,376 is baseless. It is contended that after a lawful deduction for the Z2-month COVID-[9 period--during which the hospital was an exclusive COVID Centre and the petitioner's business was legitimately stalted the arrears amount to Rs. 33,00,000. Moreover, the respondent holds a security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and separately owes the petitioner Rs. 8,00,000 for medicines supplied under the Arogyasree scheme which are not paid to the petitioner.

4.4 It is contended that the G.O.Ms. No. 54, dated 14.03.2011, is misplaced application to the facts of the case; as the G.O. prohibited renewal \\ \ ! I l i! 6 NBK, J of leases, an<l there is no renewal in the instant case as the petitioner was a lawful tenant "holding over" the subject premises, admittedly by paying rents.

4.5 ,.t is further contended that the petitioner has filed a Suit in O.S.No.288 cf 2015 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courr, Secunderaba,J, and in the interlocutory application, I.A.No.3 17 of 2015 filed therein, the t:ial Court granted an injunction order in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondent-authorities to not dispossesses the petitioner frorn the suit premises,, and therefore the impugned action is violative of the injunction orders passerl by the trial Court.

4.6 It is contended that proper recourse in the subject matter lies in a civil suit for ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act, and not under the inapplicable provisions of the Public Premises Act, and the eviction attempt threatens not only the petitioner's livelihood but also that of his employees, causing irreparable loss and injury.

5. Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of Respondents, essentially <:ontends that the petitioner's foundational arguments-that the premises are: not "public premises," that he is not an "unauthorized occupant,,, and that the Public Premises Act does not apply to him-are legally untenable when scrutinized under the specific definitions of the Telangana public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968.

5.1 It is contended that the subject property, Shop No. I within the Gandhi Hospital campus, unequivocally falls within the ambit of "public premises" as defined under Seption 2(dxii) of the Public Premises Act. The Gandhi Hospital, represented by its Superintendent, is an institution owned and controlled try the Telangana State Government. It is not a mere commercial entity but an authority established under the state's administrative framework, ,/ 7 wp_5991_2025 NBK, J squarely fitting the definition of a "corporation... or a local authority established by or under...State Act and owned and controlled by Government."

5.2 It is also contended that the petitioner is indisputably an "unauthorized occupant" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. The petitioner occupied the premises under a lease deed for a fixed term of two years, which expired on 11.03.2013. Section 2(h) explicitly includes "the continuance in occupation... after the authority... under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired." Therefore, from 12.03.2013 onwards, the petitioner's occupation became unauthorized. The respondent authority scrupulously followed the due process mandated by the Public Premises Act by first issuing a notice under Section 4 and thereafter the impugned eviction notice under Section 5(1), rendering the entire process legally sound.

5.3 Leamed Government Pleader, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in'sharada Dayadhish Shetty Vs.',The Director, CISR-NCL2, and contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided a clarificatory interpretation of the term "public premises.", and held that institutions that are State-owned or State-controlled (like the Gandhi Hospital in the present case), fall within the expansive definition of public premises, and the Public Premises Act is to be construed liberally to achieve its objective of enabting the swift eviction of unauthorized occupants from such properties.

5.4 Furthermore, the leamed Government Pleader contends that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Pubtic Premises Act, and therefore the petitioner cannot bypass such efficacious remedy to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under ArticLe226. 2 CivilAppeal No. 223 of 2O22 s- \L 8 NBK,

5.5 ltdverting to the pending civil suit, O.S. No. 288 of 2015, leamed Government ])leader contends that Sections 10 and l1 of the Public Premises Act expressll' bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter concerning the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises, and when the proceedings are instituted under the special Act, the pendency of a civil suit for injunction becomes inconsequential and tannot stifle the statutory eviction pro()ess. Learned Government Pleader therefore contends that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of public premises, with admitted amears of rertt exceeding Rs. 2 Crores, causing significant loss to the public exchequer, and the respondent has acted in strict compliance with the due process of la'ru under the special statute, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on merits and on maintainability.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be note<l that the petitioner essentially raises three grounds - first, that the premises do not qualiff as "public premises"; second, that his occupation, having trans'tioned to a tenancy "at will" and "holding over" under the Transfer of Property ,\ct, 1882, is not unauthorized; and third, that the respondent No.5 lacks jurisdi;tion to initiate proceedings under the Telangana Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968.

6.1 At the outset, it is to be noted that Gandhi Hospital is a fully State- owned hospital, run for public benefit to cater to the health needs of poor, and the entire premises in which the services of the hospital are being conducted belong to ttre State, and therefore as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharada Dd:yadhish Shetty (supra),an institution tike Gandhi Hospital, owned and controlled by the State Government and functioning as an integral part of $Wublic health system, squarely falls within the ambit of a "corporation,, or "local authority" under section z(d) of the public premises Act. The petitioner's argument that only entities like the GHMC have jurisdictional 9 wp_5991_2025 NBK, ] competence to issue notices like the impugned order,'is a narrow, self-serving interpretation, that runs contrary to the expansive definition endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for achieving the objectives under the Public Premises Act. Therefore, the Gandhi Hospital and its premises is a "public premises" and comes within the ambit of Public Premises Act for initiating eviction proceedings against unauthorised occupants. And therefore, the respondent No.5 being the Superintendent of the Hospital and exercising administrative control of the Hospital cannot be said to be lacking jurisdictional competence to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitionelrlt is naiVe to contend that only authorities like GHMC or HMDA or an Estate Officer can only act under Public Premises Act. The authority administratively controlling and custodian of the "public premises" is very much jurisdictionally competent to act under the Public Premises Act to evict unauthorised occupants of such premises.

6.2 Moreover, the petitioner's request..for protection under the Transfer of Property Act has no effect because Sections l0 and 1 I of the Public Premises Act contain overriding clauses and explicitly bar the jurisdiction of civilcourts. It is important to note Section 10 of the Public Premises Act in this context. "10. Finality of orders.-Save as othetwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate ofticer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or underthis AcL"

6.3 Further, the petitioner cannot seek refuge under the argument of consensual "holding over", as the G.O.Ms.No.S4 explicitly prohibits any renewal of leases for private medical shops from t4.03.2011, and therefore whe1r the petitioner's original lease expired on 11.03.2013, and the \ 10 NBK, G.O.Ms.No.S4 issued in 201 I (which is two years prior to the expiry of lease of the petitioner) explicitly bars any renewal of existing lease for private medical shop:i, strch Government Order cannot be circumvented by inventing alternative ro'ltes of "deemed renewal" or "holding over" or "tenancy at will". Therefore, wlten there is no authorised lease at all after 11.03.2013 in f-avour of the petitioner due to the operation of G.O.Ms.No.54, the petitioner contention of the petitioner on "legitimate expectations" cannot be countenancerl. The concept of "holding over" or "tenancy at will" under general tenartcy [aw' cannot override the'Public Premises Act, a special law enacted for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public property.

6.4 lhough the petitioner challenging the respondent's contention about the arrears of Rs.2,45,21,376, there is no documented evidence in support of his contention that there were no arrears and that he has been paying the rents regrlarly. On the contrary, it is specific contention of the respondent No.5, based on records, that the Gandhi Hospital was a Nodal Centre during COVID-I9, and there was heightened business activity and the said fact is "o..obo.utec, by the rejection of rent exemption request of the petitioner.

6.5 Furthermore, the reliance placed by the petitioner in Samir Sobhan (supra) is misplaced, as the Gandhi Hospitat and its premises, being a public propt:rty owned by the State, and being run and controlled by the State Governmen':, is a public premises under the administrative jurisdiction of the respondent No.5 and therefore, as held above, the respondent No.5 has jurisdictiontrl competence to issue the impugned notice under the Public Premises A,;t, to evict the petitioner who is an unauthorised occupant, as the original lease of' the petitioner expired in 2013 and there is no renewal/extension of lease in view of the bar under G.O.Ms.No.54. / / 17 wp_5991_2025 NBl( J

6.6 The respondent No.5 issued an initial notice on 05.I1.2024, to which the petitioner replied on 18.11.2024. Thereafter, a detailed show-cause notice under Section 5(1) ofthe Public Premises Act was issued on 1,4.02.2025, affording the petitioner a final opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the injunction order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.288 of 2015 does not prevent the respondent authorities from following due process of law for evicting the petitioner.

7."" '[n'that tiew of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025. '8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The respondent \.No.5 shall take app5opriate measures for eviction of the petitioner as per law within tWo webkS frorn today. Respondent No.5 shall also initiate appropriate t\ proceedings to recover the monthly rentals due that remained unpaid by the petitioner till date, as per law; and the petitioner is at liberty to produce the documentary evidence, if any, with regard to alleged unpaid monthly rentals. Miscellaneous shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REJISTRAR SECTI{fiFFICER To One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. One CC to SRI P. NAGESH, Advocate [OPUC] S. Two CCs to GP for Medical, Heatth and Family Welfare, High Court for the j I I I I I i :i ) I State of Telangana at Hyderabad. TOUTJ

6. Two CD Copies B M/MP tu ',d THE ( I(i 16F * * t HIGH COLIRT DATED:12'.10912025 ORDER WP.No.5991 oI 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU']T COSTS JKs tlf,e ,