ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No.10-3-291/2, admeasuring 465 square yards situated at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad and his ownership and title over the said property are admitted and undisputed by respondents. It is stated, on 23.06.2018, Respondent No.2, acting on behalf of Respondent No.3, entered into a valid and subsisting lease agreement with Petitioner for use and occupation of the said premises for a period of three years, on a monthly rent of Rs.3,28,020/-. It is further stated, on expiry of initial lease period, respondents sought continuation of lease and accordingly, on 08.09.2022, lease was extended for a further period of three years on the same terms and conditions. Under the extended lease, rent was fixed at Rs.18/- per square foot, and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continued without any dispute. 1.1. It is stated, while lease was subsisting, Respondent No.2 issued notice dated 15.09.2023, informing Petitioner that premises would be vacated shortly on emergency grounds. The said notice did not specify any definite date for vacating the premises or for handing over possession of the building to the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 03.01.2024, Respondent No.3 informed that building had been vacated on 18.12.2023. However, according to Petitioner, despite such intimation, respondents continued to retain possession and control over the subject premises even after 18.12.2023, as the keys were not handed over and the building was not restored to him for use or occupation. In view of the continued control of respondents over the premises, Petitioner addressed a detailed letter dated 22.01.2024 to Respondent No.2, pointing out that under Clause 12 of the lease agreement, respondents were obligated to assess and compensate for damages caused to the building at the time of vacating the premises. 1.2. Petitioner also drew attention to Clause 5 of the lease agreement, under which respondents were required to clear all arrears relating to electricity consumption and water charges up to the date of delivery of possession. In the said letter, Petitioner specifically informed Respondent No.2 that, based on the assessment and quotation furnished by a civil engineer, the damages caused to the building were quantified at Rs.28,92,089/-. It is asserted, unless damages were assessed and settled in accordance with the lease conditions, he could not safely or lawfully take back possession of the premises. 1.3. In the said letter, Petitioner specifically informed Respondent No.2 that, based on the assessment and quotation furnished by a civil engineer, the damages caused to the building were quantified at Rs.28,92,089/-. It is asserted, unless damages were assessed and settled in accordance with the lease conditions, he could not safely or lawfully take back possession of the premises. 1.3. It is also stated, despite repeated requests and follow-ups, respondents delayed the process of inspection and assessment of damages. Ultimately, Respondents 2 and 3 conducted inspection of the premises on 16.03.2024 and only thereafter the actual and physical possession of the building was delivered to Petitioner on 19.03.2024. Delivery of possession on the said date is evidenced by Letter dated 19.03.2024. Through proceedings dated 15.01.2025, Respondent No.2 directed payment of Rs.8,93,003/-towards damages to the building, disputing and not accepting Petitioner's actual claim of Rs.28,92,089/-. The said amount was released only after prolonged delay and after the respondents completed the assessment process. 1.4. Petitioner states that on 24.04.2024, he formally requested Respondent No.2 to release rents payable for the period from December 2023 to March 2024, during which period the premises admittedly remained under the control of respondents. In the same representation, he also requested clearance of arrears towards electricity charges, water charges and damages in accordance with the lease agreement. Respondent No.2 cleared water charges amounting to Rs.1,90,911/- through proceedings dated 27.08.2024 and electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs.13,012/- for the months of February and March 2024 through proceedings dated 23.08.2024. By proceedings dated 05.11.2024, Respondent No.2 categorically accepted its liability to pay water charges till the date of actual and physical delivery of possession and accordingly, directed release of Rs.5,38,246/- for the relevant period, thereby admitting that possession of the premises continued with the respondents till 19.03.2024. 1.5. It is also stated, thereafter, on 07.02.2025, Petitioner addressed another representation to Respondent No.2 seeking release of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,55,000/- dcalculated at Rs.2,85,000/- per month for the period from December 2023 to March 2024. Despite, no response was received. Petitioner asserts that there are no disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition. 1.5. It is also stated, thereafter, on 07.02.2025, Petitioner addressed another representation to Respondent No.2 seeking release of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,55,000/- dcalculated at Rs.2,85,000/- per month for the period from December 2023 to March 2024. Despite, no response was received. Petitioner asserts that there are no disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition. The ownership of the property, execution and validity of the lease deeds, agreed quantum of rent, respondents' intention to vacate, time consumed for assessment of damages, payment of Rs.8,93,003/- towards damages, and payment of water charges till actual physical delivery of possession are all admitted facts borne out by the respondents' own proceedings. According to Petitioner, the only legal issue that arises for consideration is whether Respondent No.2 is bound to pay rent for the period from December 2023 till 19.03.2024, when actual and physical possession of the premises was admittedly delivered to him. So long as possession remained with respondents, liability to pay rent continued under the lease agreement. 1.6. Petitioner further states that he earlier filed Writ Petition No. 12406 of 2025 complaining non-consideration of request for release of rents and the said writ petition was closed by order dated 16.07.2025 granting liberty to challenge the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2025. Once Respondent No.2 accepted its liability to pay water charges and other dues till actual physical delivery of possession, it is impermissible for respondents to deny liability to pay rent for the very same period. Petitioner asserts that such denial is arbitrary and unsustainable. 2. Respondent No.2 – District Minority Welfare Officer filed counter stating that Application of Petitioner seeking release of rents was considered and rejected by an endorsement dated 27.06.2025, strictly in accordance with Memo dated 30.04.2025 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Minorities Residential Educational Institutions Society (TGMREIS), Hyderabad, wherein it was clearly recorded that the subject building was vacated on 18.12.2023. On the basis of which, Respondent No.2 asserts that rent was payable only up to the date of vacating, namely 18.12.2023, and not thereafter. After 18.12.2023, building was under the control of Petitioner and not under the occupation or possession of Respondents 2 or 3. In view of the categorical instructions issued by the Secretary, TGMREIS, Hyderabad, through Memo dated 30.04.2025, this office was not willing to release rent up to 19.03.2024, as claimed by Petitioner. After 18.12.2023, building was under the control of Petitioner and not under the occupation or possession of Respondents 2 or 3. In view of the categorical instructions issued by the Secretary, TGMREIS, Hyderabad, through Memo dated 30.04.2025, this office was not willing to release rent up to 19.03.2024, as claimed by Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is bound by the directions of the Secretary, TGMREIS, and has acted strictly in compliance therewith. 2.1. It is further stated that notice dated 15.09.2023 was issued to Petitioner informing that building would be vacated shortly on emergency grounds, pursuant to which, premises were vacated on 18.12.2023. The allegation that respondents continued to occupy the premises beyond the said date is denied and reiterates that vacating of the building on 18.12.2023 is an admitted and recorded fact. It is specifically contended that as per Letter dated 19.03.2024 issued by the Principal, TGMRJC, Asifnagar Boys-1, Hyderabad, it is clearly established that the building was vacated on 18.12.2023 and an attempt was made to hand over the keys of the premises to the owner. However, according to Respondent No.2, Petitioner was reluctant to receive the keys, as he insisted upon inspection of the damages to the building by the head office authorities before accepting possession. Respondent No.2 submits that the delay in formal handover was on account of Petitioner's own insistence and not due to continued occupation by the respondents. 2.2. Respondent No.2 further states that on 16.03.2024, officials of the Building Section of the head office, namely Mr. Asif and Mr. Habeeb along with other staff, visited the old premises at Vijayanagar Colony and inspected the damages caused to the building during its usage by the students. After completion of inspection, the officials instructed the Principal, TGMRJC, Asifnagar Boys-1, Hyderabad to hand over the building after cleaning the premises. Accordingly, the vacated building was handed over to the owner, Mr. Mahmood Bin Abdullah, on 19.03.2024, thereafter the building has been under the control of the owner. It is clarified that the letter dated 19.03.2024 was issued by the Principal, TGMRIC, Asifnagar Boys-1, and not by Respondent No.2, therefore Petitioner cannot attribute the act of handover directly to Respondent No.2. It is reiterated that the role of Respondent No.2 was confined to acting in accordance with the instructions issued by the Secretary. TGMREIS, Hyderabad. 2.3. It is clarified that the letter dated 19.03.2024 was issued by the Principal, TGMRIC, Asifnagar Boys-1, and not by Respondent No.2, therefore Petitioner cannot attribute the act of handover directly to Respondent No.2. It is reiterated that the role of Respondent No.2 was confined to acting in accordance with the instructions issued by the Secretary. TGMREIS, Hyderabad. 2.3. With regard to the claim relating to damages, it is stated, proceedings dated 15.01.2025 were issued by the Secretary, TGMREIS, Hyderabad, directing the Finance Officer to release Rs.8,93,003/- towards repairs and renovation of the building in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement. TGMREIS Engineer estimated the cost of repairs and renovation at Rs.8,93,003/- after taking into account the damages sustained to the building during its use by the students. The said amount was sanctioned as usage maintenance and was directed to be released to the Principal, TGMRJC, Asifnagar Boys-1, for onward payment to Petitioner with due acknowledgement. 2.4. It is asserted, all bills pertaining to Petitioner have been cleared and that rent has been paid only up to the date of vacating of the building ie. 18.12.2023. Apart from payment of rent up to the said date and payment of Rs.8,93,003/- towards building damages, no further amounts are payable to Petitioner. Respondent No.2 places reliance on Memo dated 30.04.2025 to contend that no rent is payable beyond 18.12.2023 and submits that the endorsement dated 27.06.2025 rejecting Petitioner's request is legal, valid and in accordance with the directions of the competent authority. 3. Heard Sri Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 4. The facts which are not in dispute are that Petitioner is owner of the subject property; valid lease agreements were executed on 23.06.2018 and extended on 08.09.2022; the quantum of rent payable under the lease is admitted; Respondent No.2 expressed its intention to vacate the premises in September 2023, and that damages caused to the building were assessed and paid to the extent of Rs.8,93,003/-. It is also an admitted fact that water charges were paid till the date of actual and physical delivery of possession on 19.03.2024. 5. It is also an admitted fact that water charges were paid till the date of actual and physical delivery of possession on 19.03.2024. 5. From a perusal of the impugned letter dated 27.06.2025, it is clear that the building of petitioner was vacated as long back as on 18.12.2023 and the 3 rd respondent institution was shifted to a new building situated at Aghapura, Hyderabad and the Principal had also informed that the building owner was reluctant to take the keys of the premises as the owner wanted to get inspection of damages caused to the building and with great difficulty, keys were handed over to the owner on 19.03.2024. According to the Principal, the rents were settled up to 18.12.2023 i.e. date of vacating the building and Rs.8,93,003/- was paid to the owner towards damages sustained to the building during the tenure of usage by the students. The impugned letter also shows that since the rent was paid up to vacating the building i.e. 18.12.2023 and damages at Rs.8,93,003/- were also paid to the owner, the request of sanctum of the rent up to 19.03.2024 i.e. handing over the premises cannot be considered. It is also stated that petitioner suppressed the said fact and approached this Court to harass respondents. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner took the plea that though Respondent No.3 informed his client that premises were vacated on 18.12.2023, keys were not handed over to them till 19.03.2024, hence, the rent for the remaining period along with the damages assessed by them shall be paid. According to learned counsel, the letter dated 19.03.2024 also discloses the above fact. However, the case of respondents is that even as per Letter dated 19.03.2024, it is clearly established that the building was vacated on 18.12.2023 and an attempt was made to hand over keys to the owner, who was reluctant to receive the keys; as petitioner insisted upon inspection of the damages to the building by the head office authorities before accepting possession, the delay in formal handover was on account of Petitioner's own insistence and not due to continued occupation by respondents. Subsequently, after completion of inspection, the officials instructed the Principal, TGMRJC, Asifnagar Boys- 1, Hyderabad to hand over the building after cleaning the premises and accordingly, the vacated building was handed over to the owner ie. petitioner on 19.03.2024. Subsequently, after completion of inspection, the officials instructed the Principal, TGMRJC, Asifnagar Boys- 1, Hyderabad to hand over the building after cleaning the premises and accordingly, the vacated building was handed over to the owner ie. petitioner on 19.03.2024. With regard to the claim relating to damages, proceedings dated 15.01.2025 were issued by the Secretary, TGMREIS, Hyderabad, directing the Finance Officer to release Rs.8,93,003/- towards repairs and renovation of the building in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement and the said amount was cleared. In view of payment of rent up to 18.12.2023 and also payment of Rs.8,93,003/- towards building damages, no further amounts are payable to Petitioner. 7. In view of the rival claims, to strike a balance between both the parties and to put a quietus to the litigation, this Court directs Respondents to pay petitioner at 50% of the agreed rent for the remaining three months i.e. from 18.12.2023 to 19.03.2024, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.