Khaja lssaquddin v. I The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitic,ner: SRI C.KUMAR Counsel for the Rers oo ndents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAI- The Court made the f cllowing: ORDER d I l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.l 8551 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner. and leamed Advocate General appearing for respondents. This writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both sides.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the highhanded action of 2nd respondent in not providing a copy of the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by him in the stay petition filed by the petitioner on 19.05.2025 in Case No.401/CAll2025 and also his highhanded acrion in proceeding with passing of final orders in main Case No.40l/C Al12025, as illegal. 3 . The petitioner and two others aie claiming that they were declared as highest bidders in the auction conducted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of Mohidipatnam community hall on yearly rent of Rs.3,41,000/- for a period of 5 years initially. It was extended from time to time. According to the petitioner, he is running a function hall in the name and sfle of 'M.P.Garden Function Palace'. He has been paying rent to the respondents promptly and there are no zrrrears.

4. It is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner and Mr.Hasan Bin Abdullah filed a suit vide O.S.No.1857 of 2014 against responden.s .i rLrr,,1 4 and another for perpefual injunctit'n. Thc s tme was dismissed.. I ht:r rave preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.226 of i 02'1 and it is pendirr.l. il'trc are no interim orders.

5. Ih,]r,rir ter. 4th respondent has filed an appli':atioiL under Section 52 a'rcl 'l I of the Telangana I lousing Board Aci. 1956 (1br short, 'the Act')a-"ai r; the petitioner herein and two others r.e Sri llrsanBin Abdullah rnl i.' Sved Khaj a Moinuddin for their eviction in r':spcct ol the sub-ie,:: lTr()ncr1r'. hefore 2"d respondent. According to the p rtitioner. the proccccli'rg., lrelbre the 2"d respondent are as follow;:- 07 .03.20?,i 2nd respondent issued notice to the pcti.ioner to appear. The petitioner dppeared and s,rugLt time to engage an Advocate and the matler r\ as a ljotrrned to 17 .03.2025 L t7 .03.20),5 2'd respondent did not held offit:e as such matter rias ad.ioumed to 07.05.2025.

07.05.20:2 5 l'he petitioner appeared in persotr antl sot qht time Lo engage an Advocate and the lna ler was ad.joumed to 12.05.2025

12.05 20)., Advocate on behalf of the petitioner lled vakalath and sought time to file counter, as sur:h. [lr,] matter was adjoumed to 19.05.2025.

19.05.20.2 5 1'he petitioner informed the 2 respondent abor t death of N4r. Hasan Bin Abdullah and requested to glant tirre to take steps. The petitioner was directed to lle counttr and the matter was adjourned to 21.05.2025

21.05.2025

24.05.2025

26.05.2025 J Stay petition was filed and the matter was adjourned to 24.05.2025 for counter of 4e respondent herein - Executive Engineer, South Division, Telangana Housing Board. The 2'd respondent informed that no counter from 4ft respondent herein is nec€ssary. Stay not granted. Reserved the main case for orders. The petitioner herein filed hvo re-open petitions along with counter affidavit in the main case requesting to re-open stay petition and main case and the 2nd respondent refused to receive the same, as such the said petitions were sent through RPAD on26.05.2025.

27.05.2025 At request of the counsel, the 2od responaurt re- opened the main case and stay petition and posted to 31.05.2025 for hearing.

31.05.202s Heard. Stay was not granted. Main case reserved for orders. Petitioner herein also filed a petition to receive rent receipts i.e. from 2004 to 2025. He also filed memo requesting to fumish order copy in stay petition.

27.06.202s Filed another memo requesting to fumish order copy in stay petition and docket proceedings in main case. The same was acknowledged. w,.,7n -*,// '/:", ,/ .'1 . .:a,: ._4i Sr 4 Perusal c1' thc iLbove proceedings would show that l)'d r:spo tdent has issued ncticc t,r the petitioner to appear on 07.03.2025. C'n l!.05.2025, thc coun..t:l fi ' rhe pctitioner informed 2nd respondent abort th: dcath of Mr. Hasan lll r .\bdullah (date of death 17.03.2025). On 21.05 2025, the petitioner file.l ,tav petition and the matter was adjoumed for filing of counter b', .1" rcspondent herein. On 24.05.202!i, 2'd r,:spondent intbrmed thal rr() counter of 4h respondent was requir,:d arrd not granted stay and lescr'\ .ld thc main case for orders. On 26.05.2025 the' petitioner filed tlvo pctr r:.ns seeking to re-open stay petition as well as,nain case along wirh tlr.r rounter but 2od respondent refused to recr:ivc -he same. On that tlre'pLl,tioner sent those petitions through RPz\D r'n 2(.05.2025. On 27 .(l:\.-).(t'.' i 2"d respondent re-opened the main case and stay petition. -)r .:i.l)5.2025. 2nd respondent heard and not grantcc stay and reserved th: r'rin case for orders. Thereafter, the petiLionrr liled a petition t: "er i ive rent receipts i.e. from 2004 to 20115. On I .05.2025 and 27 .0('.'.)- )'). i . the petitioner requested 2'd respondent to funri -sh a copy of the orcier i" s.av petition and docket proceedings in ma.n ca;e but the same \\'ore n('r tumished, despite receiving and acknowleJein I the said memos. I'he',:f rre. the petitioner herein has filed the pre;ent writ petitign,rn i( (r(i.2()25. 5

6. According to the petitioner, without fumishing a copy of the order in stay petition, also without affording an opportr.rnity of hearing in the main case and that even after filing the present writ petition, respondents 3 and 4 have taken possession of the subject property early in the moming of 02.07.2025 by sealing the subject property without following due procedure laid down under law. Further the 2nd .l:. . :*'" respondent, without conctuding enquiry in accordance with the procedure, passed order on 25.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the entire action of the respondents 2 to 4 is arbitrary and illegal.

7. Whereas, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 25.0.6.2025 and would contend that the 2d respondent has passed an order in accordance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act. There is no error in the order dated 25.06.2025. Respondents 3 and 4 tried to serve a copy of the said order to the petitioner, but he refused to receive the copy of the said order. He sought to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Sri C.Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would contend that Sri Hasan Bin Abdullah in Case No.40llCA1/2025 ls no more He died on 07.03.2025 itself. In proof of the same, he has - o r.f,ii ' ;,,.-.- :iJrG idffi" &{. 'i{l*4;". '. I l I i I I i i 6 filed dcirth (':tiflcale. The said fact was also inlornred ro the 2nd responde'nt d r ng the course of hearing on 19.05.2[r25. 2"d r:spondent mentionr:r-l in rrgc 6 and cause title of the said ordcr. Even lhen. vide order dated .).i 06.2025,2od respondent declared tht: per.itior cr herein, late Sri ll::rn bin Abdullah and Syed Khaja I\'[oin tddin, as unauth<viz,.:d , ) -:cupants of the schedule property fr)m '17.0 i.2014 till the date oJ tlr,:'r eviction. He has directed them to racale thc schedule propeffv tirrtrr ,, ith and hand over the possession, otherq'ise t)rey would be forcibll r'r icted. He has also directed them to pa1' r sum of Rs.71,10,.)lli; . to the 4e respondent herein towards dar-rage; awarded for the unautlrozicd occupation of the schedule premises rllcr deducting thc arnoun,,s J'rLid by them, forthwith failing which the sarn: shall be recovere o hr rttaclment and sale of the movable a:td i Dmovable propertr(,s ar ( 3s arears

9. ['r:nr,rrl of the said order would reveal that in the :ause title itself 2"' r,rs, r )ndent has mentioned that Sri Hasan Bin Ab,lullah, 2"d respondrnt t.r:rein died. 'I'hus, impugned order dated 25.( 6.2025 is against a dr:a J person. Therefore, any order passed agains: a dr)ad person is non-est rmJ he same is nullity. Despite bringing the r;aid :act to the notice o i ll"' rr spondent that Sri Hasan Bin Abdullah. is no more, 2'd 7 respondent herein cannot declare him as unauthorized occupant and direct him to pay arrears of rent etc, along with others. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is non-est and the same is nullity. Under the guise of the order dated, 25.06.2025, respondents 3 and 4 evicted the petitioner and another Mr. Syed Klaja Moinuddin from the subject property. Therefore, the same is also illegal. , i^:r' "JJB I 0. It is also bom out of record that the petitioner Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin and Hasan Bin Abdullah have formed into a partnership firm and running the subject function hatt. Hasan Bin Abdullah died on

07.03.2025.

11. In thc light of the same, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25-06.2025 in Case No-401/CAl/2025 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside. The matter is remanded back to 2nd respondent with a direction to pass orders afresh. The petitioner shall fumish the details of the legal heirs of late Hasan Bin Abdullah by Tuesday i.e.

08.07.2025.2nd respondent shall lx hearing on 08.07.2025 at 2.00 p.M. The petitioner and Syed Khaja Moinuddin and legal heirs of Mr. Hasan Bin Abdultah shall enter appearance. If the legal heirs of late Hasan Bin Abdullah wants to file counter, they shall file counter on 09.07.2025. However, 2od respondent shall complete the entire exercise and pass orders afresh in acccirdance with law within thirty (30) days from today. > I : 8 1 l r . As l)er the order dated 25.06.2025 of thc .Znd r:spo rdent, the petitionel ;rnd others are due and liable to pay a'l al nount of Rs.25,59 6j9 - ou'ards damages upto 30.06.2025, arrearr; of lease rent payable c,f l{s .l !,50,546/- and total amount of Rs.71,10.225,t 1l ll. I : rrned counsel for the petitioner d'spules thc same. Ref'errintr; io Irc representation dated 18.06.2025 subrnitLcC by the petitionc'. le;.ned counsel for the petitioner would cr)ntelld ttat despite the said reprerr,:,rtation , respondent No.3 did not cons der lhe s rme. 1 L3 Irr rhe light of the same, the Assistant [lltate Olf cer of 3d respondent lli a.rd shall consider rcpresentation dated 18.06 2025 and also recc'ipr,s 1i ed by the petitioner in proof of palment of rent. The petitione': ,fi r I cooperate with him and he shall complck the said enquiry rrilhin trvo (2) weeks from today.

11..1. ,i.., discussed supra, the order dated 2i.06 202 i in Case No.40li()r, l,l( 2.5 of 2"t respondent is set aside. Thc-efore. re spondents 3 and 4 shLrll . rLscal the lock within two (2) days frorn totlal , rcrmit the petitioner to : rnduct business without any object on. -fhir order is subject to r::r,rlt of fresh order to be passed by the 2'd resp rnde nt. ,/ 9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Housing Department, of Telangana. cretariat, Hyderabad, State

2. The Competent Authority (Tribunal), (South And Central Division), Telangana Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, MJRoad, Hyderabad-500001 .

3. The Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Telangana Housing Board, 1 st Floor. South Division, Gruhakalpa, tVI.J.Road, Hyderabad-500001

4. The Executive Engineer (Hg), South Division, Telangana Housing Board, Ir/.J. Road, Hyderabad-500001.

5. One CC to SRI C.KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to SRI C.BUCHI REDDY, SC FOR TGHB IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSRw

51.' #ii. xlq:^t r,'rr !.i.: :iii. :', :i,': t f ( CC TODAY HIGH COUFI'T DATED:0310712025 ,. oI, -( ,4 LL ,$ s-\ \ J l, .) 111 i ;i a. -/ I ,:i ORDER WP.No.1855a of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT C OSTS