ORDER : Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not granting renewal of the recognition to the petitioner’s institution for academic years 2021-31 by relying on false complaint of respondent Nos.5 and 6 stating that suit O.S.No.1252/2019 filed by them is pending, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the official respondents to grant renewal of recognition for the academic years 2021-31. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) Petitioner’s school was started in the year 1954 as Upper Primary School with classes I to VII in Telugu Medium and grant-in-aid was also extended to it. In the year 1975 classes VIII to X were added by permission. The school is being run with no complaint and the institution was granted 10 years recognition for High School for the academic years 2010-11 to 2019-20 vide proceedings R.C.No.2038/B2/2010, dt: 23.07.2010. However, the 3rd respondent did not grant recognition for 2021-30 following G.O.Ms.No.1, dt: 01.01.1994 on the ground that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed suit O.S.No.1252/2019 claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the correspondent K.A. Prakash. The 5th respondent has also filed false complaint against the said correspondent and the FIR was also registered bearing FIR No.37/2020 under section 120b, 463, 464, 420 r/w 34 of IPC which is pending. The 5th respondent issued a notice expressing objections against the recognition of the petitioner’s institution. The correspondent made an application for renewal of recognition to the institution for the academic years 2024-2025 by submitting all the required documents. However, the respondent authorities did not accord recognition in view of the complaint of respondent No.5. On the directions of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the MEO conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent. Again the Deputy Education Officer was directed to conduct enquiry and submit report. She conducted enquiry and submitted a detailed report vide R.C.No.11/nandyal/10, dt: 12.02.2021 recommending to consider the proposals of according extension of temporary recognition for classes VIII to X Telugu medium for the academic years 2022-2023 i.e., only for one year so as not to cause any inconvenience to the students. She conducted enquiry and submitted a detailed report vide R.C.No.11/nandyal/10, dt: 12.02.2021 recommending to consider the proposals of according extension of temporary recognition for classes VIII to X Telugu medium for the academic years 2022-2023 i.e., only for one year so as not to cause any inconvenience to the students. (b) The correspondent’s father Sri Shanta Murthy had three children and he purchased the present building in the name of society and it was alleged by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 that a registered will deed dated 29.12.2015 was executed by the said Sri Shanta Murthy. He passed way on 18.07.2017. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not file any probate proceedings. However, they clandestinely got mutated the property in the Municipal records. The husbands of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are also working as teachers in the school. The correspondent of the petitioner made a representation dated 22.03.2021 with a request to grant renewal of recognition for the academic years 2022-2030, but 3rd respondent did not renew the recognition in view of the complaint of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus: (a) The petitioner’s school was established in the year 1954 initially with permanent recognition for the classes I to VII. The school was upgraded into High School by opening of classes from VIII to X in the year 1975. The contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not granted renewal of recognition for a period of 10 years i.e., from 2021-2031 in view of filing of suit O.S.No.1252/2019 by respondents 5 & 6 and their claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the correspondent is not correct. The petitioner has submitted proposals for renewal of recognition for the classes VIII to X Telugu medium for the academic years 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 through the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal, Krunool District vide Lr.R.c.No.11/St.M/2021, dated 12.02.2021. The Director of School Education, Amaravathi, in his proceedings Rc.No.ESE02-17/398/2020-PS-1-CSE-2, dated: 11.09.2020 has issued instructions to grant renewal of recognition to the schools for three years only. Accordingly, as per the recommendations of the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal, the proposals were submitted to the 3rd respondent through online for granting of renewal of recognition for three academic years from 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner institution. Accordingly, as per the recommendations of the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal, the proposals were submitted to the 3rd respondent through online for granting of renewal of recognition for three academic years from 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner institution. In the meanwhile, the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 made complaint to the 3rd respondent regarding the leased documents of the petitioner school. Hence, the 3rd respondent granted renewal of recognition for one academic year 2020-2021 only instead of three academic years to avoid hardship to the SSC students 2021 studying in the petitioner’s school vide proceedings Rc.No.0682/B2/2020, dt: 30.03.2021. (b) It is further contended that instruction have been issued to the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal vide Procs.Rc.No.5831/A8/2021, dt: 20.03.2021 to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 against the correspondent of the petitioner’s school and submit enquiry report. The enquiry officer submitted her report vide Lr.Rc.No.190/Dyeo/2021, dt: 18.08.2021 stating that the management of the petitioner’s school has not provided sufficient physical facilities such as drinking water, toilets and play ground etc. There are disputes between the management of the school and respondents 5 & 6 and there is a case pending at Nandyal Court and the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus: (a) Originally St. Mary Fathima High School, Nandyala was established by one Smt. Samadanamma to provide education to the poor students without any profit motive in a rented house and it was registered as a society by name “St. Mary Fathima Upper Primary School, Committee, Karuva Peta, Nandyala” bearing society registration No.39/1968. However, correspondent handed over the correspondent ship to K.A. Shantha Murthy in the year 1970 who is the father of the petitioner and father-in-law of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said K.A. Shantha Murthy worked as president-cum-correspondent of the said school. The present school building was purchased by late K.A. Santha Murthy with self-earnings from (1) Korapolu Veeranarayana, S/o Chinna Venkatappa and (2) Narayanamma W/o Veeranarayana under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1994 bearing document No.6188/1994 of Nandyala Sub Registrar Office, Nandyala. Therefore, K.A. Santha Murthy who is the absolute owner of the said building, had executed a registered will deed dated 29.12.2015 and bequeathed the school premises to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Later he died on 18.07.2017. Therefore, K.A. Santha Murthy who is the absolute owner of the said building, had executed a registered will deed dated 29.12.2015 and bequeathed the school premises to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Later he died on 18.07.2017. Thus, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 became the owners of the school premises and municipal authorities have mutated their names in the concerned records. (b) The petitioner K.A. Prakash took the school premises on oral lease for running school and for his residential purpose from K.A. Santa Murthy during his life time. The petitioner continued the same and paid @ Rs.30,000/-per month to the respondents upto May, 2018, till after the demise of K.A. Santa Murthy. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 intended to construct shopping complex and a house in the schedule property for their residence. So, when they requested the petitioner to vacate the school premises, with a malafide intention to grab the school property, the petitioner started illegally claiming the right and title over the school property and hence, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.1252/2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyala, claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner which is pending. (c) The allegation of the petitioner that false complaint was filed against him is not correct. The present petitioner is not a eligible to be correspondent of the school vide proceedings of the Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, R.C.No.613/D3-2/201, dt: 16.08.2021 which says that the Head Master (or a teacher) of an institution should not be nominated to the post of correspondent because the Head Master is an employee whereas the correspondent is representing an employer having disciplinary control over employees in private management schools. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard Ms. K.N. Vijaya Lakshmi learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Katta Haranadha Raju representing respondent Nos.5 and 6. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow ? 7. Point: Learned counsel of either side reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. The bone of contention is the ownership of the school building and its premises. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow ? 7. Point: Learned counsel of either side reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. The bone of contention is the ownership of the school building and its premises. While the petitioner who is the correspondent of the petitioner’s school, contends that the school building was purchased by his late father K.A. Santha Murthy in the name of society and during his life time he administered the school and later the petitioner succeeded it, refuting the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are the daughters-in-law of late K.A. Santha Murthy, contend that that K.A. Santha Murthy purchased the said property in his name under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1994 bearing document No.6188/1994 and later by virtue of registered will deed dated 29.12.2015 bequeathed the subject property in the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and they succeeded the said property and till 2018 the petitioner paid rent @ Rs.30,000/-per month and later he evaded and further, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 with an intention to demolish the building and to construct shopping complex and a residential house for their use, requested the petitioner to vacate the premises, he did not heed and therefore they filed O.S.No. 1252/2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyala claiming arrears of rent and eviction and same is pending and hence the petitioner cannot seek for extension of renewal and official respondents also cannot extend the renewal of recognition for 10 years i.e., upto 2030. 8. While so, the contention of the official respondents Nos.1 to 4 is that initially the St. Mary Fathima High School, Nandyala was established in the year 1954 as an aided school for classes I to VII and later it was upgraded with permission to extend classes VIII to X in the year 1975. the 3rd respondent has not been granting renewal for recognition for 10 years from 2021-2031 as stated by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Director, School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati in his proceedings Rc.No.ESE02-17/398/2020-PS-1-CSE-2, dated: 11.09.2020 issued instructions to grant renewal of recognition to schools only for three years. As per the said instructions, the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal sent proposals to the 3rd respondent for granting renewal of recognition for three academic years from 20202021 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner’s institution. As per the said instructions, the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal sent proposals to the 3rd respondent for granting renewal of recognition for three academic years from 20202021 to 2022-2023 to the petitioner’s institution. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 and 6 made a complaint to the 3rd respondent regarding the disputes between the petitioner and them. In those circumstances, the 3rd respondent has granted renewal of recognition only for one academic year i.e., 2020-2021 instead of three years to avoid hardship to the SSC students of 2021 studying in the petitioner’s school vide proceedings Rc.No.0682/B2/2020, dt: 30.03.2021. 9. I gave my anxious consideration to above arguments. Requirements for establishment of new school or upgradation of existing school and granting of permission etc., are covered by The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993. Rule-5 speaks of requirement of establishing of a new school or upgradation of existing school. Rule-5(2) says that every educational agency desirous of opening a school or upgrading the existing school shall have a provision of adequate accommodation for the smooth conduct of classes. There shall be approximately 6 – 8 Square Feet per pupil and the area shall be calculated section wise. (a) Then, Rule-6 deals with the submission of application in Form-I for establishment of new school or upgradation of existing school. One of the requirements under Rule-6(2)(f) is that the applicant shall show the evidence of ownership of the land and building or lease of land or building as the case may be. Rule-7 speaks about the scrutiny and grant of permission. Rule-8 deals with the validity of the permission. It says that permission granted under Rule-7 is valid only upto the end of July of every year and it shall be incumbent upon the educational agency to apply in the manner prescribed under the Rules for recognition. Failure to do so, will result in the permission being automatically lapsed. Rule-9 speaks about the recognition. Rule-9 (5) says that recognition shall be valid for a period of 10 academic years. These are the rules governing the establishment of private educational institutions and their granting permission and recognition. 10. Failure to do so, will result in the permission being automatically lapsed. Rule-9 speaks about the recognition. Rule-9 (5) says that recognition shall be valid for a period of 10 academic years. These are the rules governing the establishment of private educational institutions and their granting permission and recognition. 10. Then, coming to the instant case, admittedly the suit O.S.No.1252/2019 is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyala filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioner. Thus, as stated supra, the title and ownership of the subject school building and its premises is the subject matter of lis before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, in my considered view, without obtaining a decree from the competent Civil Court for eviction of the petitioner, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot insist the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 to stop the renewal of recognition on the sole ground that the title over the school building is a subject matter of lis. If the petitioner, without reference to the pending suit in O.S.No.1252/2019, attains any disqualification under relevant laws, the official respondents may consider refusal to extend recognition. However, that is altogether a different matter but the respondent authorities cannot refuse the renewal of recognition on the sole ground that the title over the subject property is a subject matter of litigation. In the circumstances slightly different from the present case, in ITC Ltd v. State of U.P., (2011) 7 SCC 493 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the lessor cannot unilaterally cancel the registered lease deed without seeking the intervention of a competent Civil Court and obtain decree. Till then, the lease will continue to be effective and binding. Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus : “30. A lease governed exclusively by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the TP Act”, for short) could be cancelled only by filing a civil suit for its cancellation or for a declaration that it is illegal, null and void and for the consequential relief of delivery back of possession. Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction grants such a decree, the lease will continue to be effective and binding. Unilateral cancellation of a registered lease deed by the lessor will neither terminate the lease nor entitle a lessor to seek possession. This is the position under private law. Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction grants such a decree, the lease will continue to be effective and binding. Unilateral cancellation of a registered lease deed by the lessor will neither terminate the lease nor entitle a lessor to seek possession. This is the position under private law. But where the grant of lease is governed by a statute or statutory regulations, and if such statute expressly reserves the power of cancellation or revocation to the lessor, it will be permissible for an authority, as the lessor, to cancel a duly executed and registered lease deed, even if possession has been delivered, on the specific grounds of cancellation provided in the statute. 31. Noida Authority is an authority constituted for the development of an industrial and urban township (also known as Noida) in Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of the U.P Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Section 7 empowers the Authority to sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to it in the industrial development area, on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose, on such terms and conditions and subject to any rules that may be made. 32. Section 14 provides for forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer. The said section empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority to resume a site or building which had been transferred by the Authority and forfeit the whole or part of the money paid in regard to such transfer, in the following two circumstances : (a) nonpayment by the lessee, of consideration money or any instalment thereof due by the lessee on account of the transfer of any site or building by the Authority; or (b) breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rules or regulations made under the Act by the lessee. 33. Sub-section (2) provides that where the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority resumes any site or building under sub-section (1) of Section 14, on his requisition, the Collector may cause the possession thereof to be taken from the transferee by use of such force as may be necessary and deliver the same to the Authority. 33. Sub-section (2) provides that where the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority resumes any site or building under sub-section (1) of Section 14, on his requisition, the Collector may cause the possession thereof to be taken from the transferee by use of such force as may be necessary and deliver the same to the Authority. This makes it clear that if a lessee commits default in paying either the premium or the lease rent or other dues, or commits breach of any term of the lease deed or breach of any rules or regulations under the Act, the Chief Executive Officer of Noida Authority can resume the leased plot or building in the manner provided in the statute, without filing a civil suit. The Authority to resume implies and includes the Authority to unilaterally cancel the lease.” 11. So from the above jurisprudence what is clear is that unless respondent Nos.5 and 6 establish their title over the property and get eviction decree from the Court in O.S.No.1252/2019, they cannot complain to the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to renew the recognition or cancel the permission to the petitioner’s school on that sole ground. As already stated supra, it would be a different matter if the petitioner attains any disqualification under A.P. Education Act, 1982 and its rules or other relevant laws. In this case the counters of official respondent Nos.1 to 4 would show that as per the proceedings of the Director of School Education, Amaravathi, in Rc.No.ESE02- 17/398/2020-PS-1-CSE-2, dated: 11.09.2020, renewal is being granted for three years only and authorities already issued renewal for academic year 2020-2021 considering the future of the students who are appearing for SSC examinations-2021. 12. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to official respondent Nos.1 to 4 to extend the renewal of recognition of the petitioner’s school for the remaining block period of 2021-22 and 2022-2023 also upon petitioner complying with the terms and conditions as ordained under relevant laws and rules. Thereafter the petitioner shall apply for further renewal of the recognition which the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have to consider basing on the fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner shall apply for further renewal of the recognition which the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have to consider basing on the fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner. This exercise will continue till the respondent Nos.5 and 6 obtain a decree from Court of competent jurisdiction for declaring their right and title over the subject property and also for eviction of the petitioner from the said property. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.