The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No'3: GP FOR HOUSING The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE H.N,BLE sRI JUsTIc.fl?,,, RAMAKRI'HNA RDDDY WRIT APPEAL No .923 0F 202s JUDGMEN Ti (Per the Hon'ble Si Justice Abhiiand Kuntar Shauilt) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.0g.2O25 passed ln learned Single Judge, the W.P.No.23662 of 2025 by the present Writ Appea,l is filed.

2. Heard learned Advocate Generai, appearing for the appellants and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants had contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 we.L.granted lease of property by name ,p.S. Nagar Community Hall, pursuant to an auction conducted by the Telangana Housing Board on 24.05.2023. The Iease tenure was extended from time to time, however, the final extension was granted up to 09.O2.2025. No further extension was granted thereafter and in fact, no further extension is permissible under the A. p. Housing Board Housing Board (Shops) Renta-l Regulation, I I 2 AKS,J & VRI(R,J ..J''1.-923 2025

1975. Learned Advocate General had contended that after -- expiry o1- Iease period, the appellants-Housing Board had institutecl case No.9B9 ICAI 12025 under Section 52 and 53 of the Telangala Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') before the competent authority and the competent authoritv had passed eviction orders uide order dated

25.06.2025.

4. Aggrieveci b-v the said eviction order, respondent Nos l and 2 earlier filed W.P.No.lB77O of 2025 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed uide order dated O3.O7 .2025' rvith an observation that an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act was available. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed on that ground. Pursuant to the said ordcr, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred C.M.A'No'31 of 2025 under Section 55 ot the Act before ihe Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The appeal is presefrtly pending and is listed on O3.Og .2025 . Learned Advocate General further contended that even before the appellate authority adjudicating the appeal, respondent Nos. I and 2 flled another Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.23662 of 2025 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition by directing the . - ., AKS,.-I & VRKR,J wa 923 2025 appellants to restore possession to respondent and further directed the appellate at appeal within a period of three (al _"rr;:. S. Learned Advocate General had further contended that Nos. I and 2 ity to decide the when once respondent the subject prem.. Nos. 1 and 2 wer Nos. I and 2 were f Iitigation i.e., '^:o ursmtssed on o3'o7'202s :e dispossessed from tses pursuant to the vacatron order, dated 25.06.2025, the question of restoring the possession to them would not arise. The second Writ petition is not maintainable, as admittedly respondent unsuccessful in the earlier round w.p.No. rBTzo of 2o2s, whichwas dismiss wirh a liberry ro file an.^^^^,' and 2 have fired Judge, city civir ro have been soughtt," i:: appear. The fact that not entitle them to file a second Writ petitior appropriate orders be naso-.r ,,_ ,,"'-"""on' aside the order, dated 2o2s andarow the _.,::::;'5 an appeal' Admittediy' respondent Nos. I C.M.A.No.3I of 2O2S zu25 before the chief ,-, " _' :. anv relief sought bv them ought the form of stay applicatidn in the the appeal is listed on 03.09.2025 does Therefore, the passed in the writ Appeal by setting passed in w p.No.23 "or., 662 or r:*-l.---.*L 4 AKS,J & VRKR,J wa-923-2025

6.Ontheotirerhand,learnedSeniorCounselappearlng for respondent Nos' I and' 2 had contended that pursuant to the order dated O3.O7.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge ln W.P.No. 18770 of 2025, respondent Nos' I antd 2 have preferred an appeat i'e'' C M'A'No'31 of 2O25 before tl're Chief Judge' City Civii Court' aud the case is listed on 03.Og.2025. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended this Court may give appropnate directions to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, to consider the stay application within a reasonable period of time so as to meet the ends of justtce '

7. This Court, having considered the nval submissions 1S of the view that the learned made bY both the Partres' Single Judge was not justiiied in disposing of thd second Writ Petition, particulariy rvhen the respondents were unsuccessful in the earlier round of litigation i'e'' W.P.No. 18770 of 2025 d'ated' O3'O7 '2025' Therefore' the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are not sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside' However' in the interest of justice, it rT ''o ulcl be appropriate to direct the appeltate autfiority-Chief Judge, City Civil Court' to decide 5 AI(S,J & VRKR,.] wa 923 2025 the stay application filed by respondent Nos.l and 2, within a period of four (4) weeks trom today and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge ought not to have directed restoration of possession to respondent Nos. I and 2. The appeltate authority- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, shall adjudicate the stay application, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. 8, With the above observations/ directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY EFTJTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 q 7 o The Executive Engtneer (Housing), Telangana Housing Board, South Division, Gruhakaloa Buildinq. Nampally. Hyderabad. irr. Vi"J-cnriimin ano' Mina6ing Director. Telangana Housing Board' Gruhakalpa Building, Nampally. Hyderabad ih; F;;;;J $.tdiary Hor6ing Department. Secretariat, Hvderabad' State of Telangana. i'hu-Cofiput"nt Authority, South and Central Division, Telangana Housing Board, Hyderabad. ir'," Apo6rirt" Authoritv cum Chief Judge' City Civil Court'^Hyderabad' o ;;'ii t" tir. eHARhou'/a: ASSocIATES, Advocate- [oPUC] o; ac io Snr c eucFll BABU, sc FoR rsHB [oPUCl Two CCs to ADVOCATE Ci"r.rEn]qi, i'gh corrtioi the'state of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUTI i;,;Cc;16 GP'FoR HouslNG, Hish court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies BSR BS W HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 JUDGMENT WA.No.923 ot 2025 ccTODAY 1HE SI4 o ii ! q EP 2[6 J \: t€) - a,-' :-! I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL' WITHOUT COSTS q (