Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 462 (TS)

Sutharaveni Suresh v. State of Telangana

2024-07-09

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, and with the consent of parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 3. The case of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is that they are the tenants in the shops situated in Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Shopping Complex belonging to the 2nd respondent since long. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have been regularly paying the agreed rent without arrears. 5. It is also the further case of the petitioners that all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent authority by issuing notice dated 14.06.2024 has claimed enhanced rent for the period from 01.04.2020 onwards claiming that the petitioners are liable to pay the aforesaid enhanced rent in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 56 MA & UD (J1) Department, dated 05.02.2011 and that the aforesaid action of respondent authority in demanding enhanced rent retrospectively i.e., with effect from 01.04.2020 is contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 31301 of 2011 and batch wherein a similar issue had fallen for consideration. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent has placed before this Court the written instructions under the signature of 2nd respondent authority which reads as under: “(i) Shop No. 7 was in the possession of Sri A. Kumar Gopi S/o Narayana, Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Shopping Complex, Karimnagar for more than 30 years. (ii) A notice in A6/709/2023-24 issued to the above individual for payment of rent increasing 33.33% w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023 and w.e.f. 01.04.2023. (iii) The above 33.33% enhancement is as per the Government G.O.Ms. No. 56 MA & UD (J1) Department dated 05.02.2011 (Copy enclosed). (iv) According to the office records, the individual is due Rent and enhancement arrears is Rs.4,40,556.00 upto 31.03.2024. (v) In the notice, it was also informed that, since the period of the shop lease is only for (30) years informed the lessee for vacate the shop, but he was neither paid the amount nor vacated the shop. (iv) According to the office records, the individual is due Rent and enhancement arrears is Rs.4,40,556.00 upto 31.03.2024. (v) In the notice, it was also informed that, since the period of the shop lease is only for (30) years informed the lessee for vacate the shop, but he was neither paid the amount nor vacated the shop. (vi) The Corporation tried very much to convince the lessee to comply to the Government instructions and the lease agreement. But he has denied not paid the above amount. (vii) Since the above individual neither paid the amount due to the Corporation nor vacated the shop even after several warnings. (viii) The Municipal Corporation Karimnagar has followed all the instructions strictly as per the Government instructions and the Hon’ble Council of the Corporation resolutions. (ix) After giving several warnings and the notices, the impugned shop No. 7 has been put in the open auction dated 06.03.2024 and the above individual Sri A. Kumar Gopi also participated in the auction. (x) In the open auction the above shop No. 7 has been allotted to some others who have participated in the open auction being the highest bidder.” 7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 8. This Court while dealing with the challenge laid before this Court in Writ Petition No. 31301 of 2011 and batch against the enhancement of rent of 33.1/3% with retrospective effect by its order dated 13.06.2015 had held that: “no doubt the respondent by way of resolution cannot enhance the rents retrospectively, if the lease is expired. But it can enhance the rents prospectively from 10.06.2011. Since it is stated that lease period of the petitioners is expired, it is open for the respondent Corporation to conduct fresh auction. The petitioners are liable to pay enhanced rents from 10.06.2011 prospectively. Till the fresh auction is conducted by the respondent, the petitioners can be continued on payment of arrears prospectively from 10.06.2011 and also future rents at enhanced rents @ 33.1/3% on the existing rents. However, as and when the auction takes place, the petitioners can participate in the same, if they are eligible.” 9. By the aforesaid decision, this Court had categorically held that the respondent authorities can claim the enhanced rent only from 10.06.2011 viz. However, as and when the auction takes place, the petitioners can participate in the same, if they are eligible.” 9. By the aforesaid decision, this Court had categorically held that the respondent authorities can claim the enhanced rent only from 10.06.2011 viz. the date of issuance of intimation of enhanced rent by the respondent authorities therein have issued proceedings informing the petitioners therein of the enhanced rent. 10. In the facts of the case, since it is not shown to this Court of the respondent authorities informing the petitioners of the enhanced rent any time prior to 14.06.2024, having regard to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities cannot claim any rent prior of 14.06.2024. 11. Since, the 2nd respondent, by the written instructions had stated that the lease period is over and the subject shops have been brought to open auction on 06.03.2024 whereat the petitioners have taken part, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to publish the list of successful bidders of the open auction immediately, and upon such publication of successful bidders, it is open for the petitioners to occupy the shop if declared successful in the open auction, failing which the respondent authorities are at liberty to take steps to evict the petitioners therefrom by following due process of law and allot the shop to the new tenant. 12. However, in the event of petitioners being not successful in the open auction held on 06.03.2024, the 2nd respondent authority shall permit the petitioners to take out their material by opening the seals affixed by it to their respective shops. 13. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.