Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Chennapuri Andhra Maha Sabha challenging the order, dated 12.1.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, the first respondent herein, rejecting the request made by the petitioner Sabha to continue the activities of the Sabha in the premises being used by it. By the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12.1.2010, the petitioner Sabha was asked to vacate the premises in its occupation, as the said premises was required for parking of vehicles. 2. It has also been stated that in spite of the order passed by this Court, on 3.12.2009, in W.P.No.16952 of 2009, directing the Corporation of Chennai to take a proper decision on the explanation, dated 17.8.2009, furnished by the petitioner Sabha, as well as the additional explanation submitted by it, if any, the first respondent had failed to comply with the said direction. Instead, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 12.1.2010, asking the petitioner to vacate the premises in question, without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, either in law or on the facts of the case. It has been stated that the land having an extent of 57 grounds, situated on Poonamallee High Road, near the Central Railway Station, Chennai, is owned by the Corporation of Chennai. It was handed over to the V.P. Hall Trust, the second respondent herein, for a period of 99 years, from the year, 1885. The said lease had been granted to the second respondent Trust, for using the premises in question, for holding public and private meetings and other such activities. However, no sub lease was permitted, as per the original lease deed, executed in favour of the second respondent Trust. It had also prohibited further constructions, which were not specifically permitted. 4. While so, the second respondent had executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, for an extent of 12,500 sq.ft., for a period of 15 years, commencing from 15.10.1967. The said sub lease, by the second respondent trust, in favour of the petitioner, is unauthorised. It had also prohibited further constructions, which were not specifically permitted. 4. While so, the second respondent had executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, for an extent of 12,500 sq.ft., for a period of 15 years, commencing from 15.10.1967. The said sub lease, by the second respondent trust, in favour of the petitioner, is unauthorised. Further, the petitioner had constructed a building in the premises in question, without the approval from the first respondent. Further, the lease executed in favour of the petitioner had expired in the year, 1985, and no further extension of lease had been granted. 5. It had also been pointed out that the original lease, made in favour of the second respondent trust, had also expired. Thereafter, there were several litigations initiated both by the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, attempting to prevent the Corporation of Chennai from taking over the possession of the property. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, an affidavit, dated 17.2.2010, had been filed before this Court, by Mr.K.Sathyanarayana the Honorary Secretary, representing the petitioner Sabha. The affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner Sabha reads as follows: "I am the Secretary of the petitioner Sabha herein, and duly authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of the petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. 1. I submit that in view of the request made by Corporation of Chennai, the first respondent herein for the purpose noble cause of renovating the Heritage Building known as VICTORIA PUBLIC HALL. The petitioner Sabha is willing to vacate the premises by 31.5.2010. The petitioner Sabha wishes that the place which is being vacated is utilised by the Corporation of Chennai for the uplift, beautification and renovation of the VICTORIA PUBLIC HALL to serve the public at large. 2. I submit that we have been in the said premises from 1967 onwards and we are catering to the needs of the minority community Telugu speaking people in Tamil Nadu and also Non Telugu speaking members. It has around 874 members. 3. The petitioner Sabha is in existence from 1916 onwards and is a non-profitable orginisation with an intention of promoting socio-cultural and sports activities. The building was developed by collecting donations from Government of Adhra Pradesh, members and other various eminent persons. 4. It has around 874 members. 3. The petitioner Sabha is in existence from 1916 onwards and is a non-profitable orginisation with an intention of promoting socio-cultural and sports activities. The building was developed by collecting donations from Government of Adhra Pradesh, members and other various eminent persons. 4. I submit that in view of the above facts, the petitioner Sabha prays that this Honble Court may be pleased consider our request for a suitable postive direction, directing the first respondent to consider granting us an alternate suitable place to shift and house the petitioner Sabha to continue promoting the objects. Socio-Cultural and Sports activities without any hindrance. 5. Therefore I pray that this Honble Court may be pleased to accept this affidavit and suitable orders may be passed as prayed for in para 4 of this affidavit and pass such further orders in the interest of the justice." 7. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner Sabha is willing to vacate the premises, by 31.5.2010. A request has also been made to this Court to direct the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner Sabha for providing alternate accommodation to the petitioner Sabha. However, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that this Court may be pleased to grant only a month’s time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. He had also submitted that if the petitioner Sabha vacates the premises in question, within a month from today, the petitioner Sabha would be given an alternate accommodation of 1,000/- sq.ft. in the third floor of the Allikullam Commercial Complex, on lease, to the petitioner Sabha, as per the terms and conditions specified by the Corporation of Chennai. 8. In view of the affidavit, dated 17.2.2010, filed on behalf of the petitioner Sabha and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation of Chennai, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises in question, on or before 31.5.2010 and the first respondent is directed to provide alternate accommodation, of 1,000 sq.ft., to the petitioner Sabha, in the third floor of the Allikullam Commercial Complex, belonging to the Chennai Corporation, on lease, on the terms and conditions, as specified by the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.