JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare action of respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioner demolishing his tin roof shed on the land attached to the Mosque known as Masjid-d-Adalat, Karimnagar Town, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the tin roof shed owned by Masjid-E-Adalat and he is regularly paying the rents to the committee since the inception of tenancy and obtaining receipts. There is an electricity meter vide number G13545 in the shed and he is also paying electricity consumption charges. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.1-Municipal Commissioner without issuing any notice or proceedings, is trying to dismantle/demolish the tin roof shed and also caused damage to his vegetable business. When the 1st respondent is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the Managing Committee instituted a suit in O.S. No.36 of 2002 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was decreed in favour of the Wakf Board on 12/4/2006 and as such, the Wakf Board is the absolute owner and the Municipal authorities are not having any right or authority to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court dtd. 24/8/2010, the petitioner allowed to continue in possession since last thirteen years and running business as vegetable vendor and if the respondents evict the petitioner, his entire family would suffer with starvation as there is no other means of livelihood. 4. Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submitted that petitioner is tenant of tin roof shed owned by the Municipal Market Committee and he has also remitted the rents to the Municipal Market Committee and the petitioner who occupied the premises as a licensee of the Municipal Market Committee is not estopped to deny the title of the Municipal Market Committee. It is further contention of the learned Standing Counsel that in the suit instituted by the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Adalat vide O.S. No.36 of 2002, the petitioner is not a party, and petitioner is not entitled to rely any findings recorded in the said suit as the same is binds the inter se parties. It is further contention of the learned Standing Counsel that in the suit instituted by the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Adalat vide O.S. No.36 of 2002, the petitioner is not a party, and petitioner is not entitled to rely any findings recorded in the said suit as the same is binds the inter se parties. Since the premises occupied by the petitioner is required for the public purpose, they have issued the impugned notice and the individual interest not prevail over the public interest. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, since the petitioner is in occupation of the subject premises for more than thirteen years, this Court will draw a presumption that the petitioner was occupied the said premises by obtaining all necessary permissions and respondent Corporation is not entitled to evict the petitioner without following the procedure known to law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to issue notice to the petitioner and conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, respondent Municipal Corporation is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for evicting from the subject premises. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.