M/s. Hotel Shezan v. A.P. Housing Board
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66 . Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.11738 of 2006 dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 25.09.2012 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9252 of 2006
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9252 of 2006 ORDER : The petitioner was allotted 111.11 square yards of land belonging to A.P. Housing Board on lease vide proceedings dated
11.3.1982 for the purpose of construction of kitchen attached to Hotel Shezan. The lease was for a period of 11 months. It appears that though the lease period expired, since the petitioner remained in possession of the said premises, proceedings were initiated for eviction of the petitioner in Case No.2179/CA1/91 under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956. It is stated that the said proceedings are still pending. In the meanwhile, the construction was sought to be demolished on
26.4.2006. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition to restrain the respondents from demolishing the construction.
This Court, while admitting the writ petition, issued order dated 27.4.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.11738 of 2006 directing that status quo should be maintained.
Though counter affidavit is not filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-A.P. Housing Board even after a lapse of 6 years, the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, submits that the construction was completely demolished and that nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication on merits.
I am unable to accept the said contention. The petitioner has categorically stated that part of the kitchen alone was demolished as on the date of filing the writ petition and taking the same into consideration, this Court directed maintenance of status quo. In any event, the learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the proceedings initiated for eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises are still pending. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in seeking to demolish the left over portion without there being any eviction orders.
In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing that status quo shall be maintained in all respects by both the parties. It is made clear that if eviction order has already been passed, the same shall govern the situation and if it is yet to be passed, further action shall be subject to the result of the same.
Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.11738 of 2006 dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 25.09.2012 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9252 of 2006
25.09.2012 Msr
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 — s. 52.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Sep 2012. The bench was NOUSHAD ALI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.