High Court · 2025

3. M/s. M.T.L. lndustries, Shed Nos- 22, AP-S. Agro lndustrial Development - Coron.. Ooo HMT Trac'tors Unit, Chintal, HYDERABAD - 500 054' Rep' by its FirinJi, Sri. M. esnwara Chary S/o. Late Sri. Ramaswamy, Aged abo-ut 43 yei.s, bcc Proprietor, .Rl/o, P19t !!o- 68' Rukmani Estate, Qutubhullapur, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District 500055 AND

1. Telangana Agro lndustrial Developmenr..Corpn. Ltd', Regd'{ffice-]03' Hermitage Off,ce Complex, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, rep' by is charrman ...PETITIONERS 2 Telanoana Aqro lndustrial Developmed Corpn. Ltd', Regd Hermiiaoe Ofrice Corlex, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad' Rep Chairma-n and Managing Director. Telanqana Aqro lndustrial Developmem corpn. Ltd., Regional office, chintal, uyderlbad - 5oO OS+, Rep. by its Regional Manager Office by its 103, Vice 3 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature ofMandamus,declaringtheimpugnedProceedingsNo.Rt\tllHYD/CWS RENTS/ESTTt2O17-18, dated 06.09.2017 of the 2nd Respondent and oral , $ I I y t le officials of the 1 st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, irr:iPl,:s of Natural Justice and Artiile 1't i,rnd 21 of the j i I and consequently set aside the Proc'aedings dated ,l esprondents and take any decision to 'r'erca te the existing --oees only after ll,vinJ an opportunity to the Writ Petitioners and direct the Respondents nct tc :'vic'. the Petitioners, except in accordance /vit1 law. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition unde| Section 151 CPC praying that in the circun'stances stated in the affidavit filed i') support of the petition, the High Court nra','be pleased to direct the Responde rrts not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Writ Petitioners from the rndustrial Sheds admeasuring 650 Sq. Yds in Shed No. 11, 560 Sq.Yds., in She: No.21,560 Sq.Yds., in Shed No.22; Res;pt:ctively situated at A.P.S. Agro lndtr:; ria Development Corpn., Opp: HMT Tractors Unit, Chintal. Hyderabad, by susc,r:nding the impugned proceedings dated r1.9.2017, pending disposal of the abo're W.it Petition. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Res pondents: M/s. K.KALPANA The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER -) HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w TPETI ON No.6 91()F 2014 o RDER: Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Smt' K Kalpana, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of resPondents.

2. The petitioners appnoached the Court seeking prayer as under: " ...to issue a Writ, order or direction' more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus' declaring the impugn€d Proceedings No'RM/HYD/ cws RENTS /ESrT/2Ot7-18, dated o6'o9'20t7 of the 3'd Respondent and oral threats givgn from by the officials of the 1tt Respondent as arbitrary' illegal, contrary to the principles of Natural lustice and Articles 14 &2L of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings dated 06.Og.2Ot7 of the Respondents and take any decision to vacate the existing lessees only after giving an opportunity to the Writ Petitioners and direct the Respondents not to evict the Petitioners' except in accordance raJith law and pass"'"' 2 MP 6591 2018

3. The r:ase the petilic r r: -s the petitioners, were allotted Industrial in brief , is that Sheds try the respondent:s tncl the petitioners have raised I oanl:; from banks. Tht_. 3.d respondent issued proceedincls dated 06.09.2017 ,nfbnning that the 1s respondent is plarnning to develop lhe pr,lmises by setting up new Agricultural implements ;tncl lachinery manufacturing units an(J in this regard the r.ran,lgement has decided to vacate all the lessees. fle 2,d respondent refused to receive the rents from petitionltr Nfs.1 and 3. Aggrieved by the samr:, the petitioners ap,p-oached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4' This cqqrt rzr'de its order dated o6.o3.2org pa.ssed interim ordq{ ._ltp,_l of 2O18 obse as nder: ^ "There :;"all be interim direction to the respond€rrl':; nrtt to take any further coercive action against tho o€,titioners subject to their depositing the arrei)r; of rent, as intimated by the respondents, vvithin a period of two weeks fronr today. It i,; 6,36u clear that if the payment is not made witL in the time stipulated above, thr: 3 wP 6591 2018 respondents shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. As it is the allegation of the respondents that sorne of the petitioners had sub-leased the property, the respondents are at liberty to issu€ notice and take action in accordance with law"'

5. Smt. K. Kalpana, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition could be disposed of by virtue of interim order of this Court dated 06.03'2018 passed in I'A' No'1 of 2018 with an observation that the respondents are at libefty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance to law' as per the the Telangana Public Premises (Eviction of provislons of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968' on behalf of the 6. The learned counsel 3p-PearlnS petitioners'"does not dispute the said submissions 1; madebythelearnedStandingCounselappearingon behalf of resPondents' T kinotn (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the nsider n 7 case, I I 1 I I l I I I I t I 4 \'/P-6591 2018 (b) fhe submissions made by the learned counser appearing on beharf of the petitionerrs and the learned Srtanding Counset appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) 'Ihe interim order of this Court dated O6.O3.2Ott| passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2O18 wtiich is in force as orr date, The rnrr.it petition is disposed of in ternrs of the interim orclerr of this Court dated O6.O3.2O1g passed in I.A. No. L crf i2O18 with a ctear observation that the respondents a'e at riberty to take action in acr:ordance to law, as l)er the provisions of the Telangana public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968. Howerrret, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous any, pendinq ir tfre Writ petition shall lso stand closed petitions, if I To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-N. SRIHARI TI\NT REGISTRAR ASSIS 1,I

1. Th_e Chairmar, -el:rngana Agro lndustrial of f iL;'i05,fr e,"ritase-off ice'cil;;",:'i j;#""',i'RsT.:l[r%Tlllrtd.,Resd ,j St:C'flON OFFTCER \

2. The Vice Ch;ri rran and Managing Directc Development ( Fo rt Rriad *,, ; : $ Jot il I I H;;'; :'b #$TS! L"J:*t :[3 6ti* itti*fl ,, n,, Region;r orf,r,( -hrntar, Hyderabad _-rorll'ot,r,r, Devetopmen corpn. Ltd.,

3. The Reoionat tr4. na,Jer, Telangana Aoro Ir 4. One CC to SFll i; AS;HOK ANAND KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Cooies C(f S. One CC to Sltl-- t( K.ALPANA Advocare tOpUCJ BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 2710212025 ORDER WP.No.6591 of 2018 /:.t;',,;L \ 1il Sf 4 l'l^\. -.. 30 ri 'll'o,- 'trli s 2ticl DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ffiw