In a petition challenging the Grampanchayat's refusal to renew a lease at enhanced rent, the High Court held that the petitioner, having failed to pay dues after the lease expired, was not entitled to continue in the premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13267 OF 2019
Between:
A.Narsulal, S/o. A.M.Heeralal, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, Mana Photo Studio, R/o. Alur Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in RC.No.38/2019 dated 04.09.2019 and the action of the 4th respondent in not accepting the enhanced rent at 33 1/3rd percent as mentioned in R.K.No.30/2008 dated 20.06.2008 for renewal of the lease as illegal arbitrary and consequently the 4th respondent to renew the lease.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 4th, respondent to renew the lease by accepting the enhanced rent of 33 1/3rd percent over the existing as per proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in R.K.No.30/2008 dated 20.06.2008.
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including eviction pursuant to the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in R.C.No.38/2019 dated 04.09.2019.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri O Manoher Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj and
Sri G.Venkata Reddy, Standing Counsel
The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No. 13267 OF 2019
A.Narsulal, S/o A.M.Heeralal, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, Mana Photo Studio, R/o Alur Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj and Sri G.Venkata Reddy, Standing counsel for Grama Panchayat.
:ORDER:
The writ petition is filed to declare the action ofthe4*^ respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.No.38of2019 dated 04.09.2019 and the action of the 4* respondentinnot accepting the enhanced rent at 33 1/3 percent, as mentioned in R.K.NO.30/2008 dated 20.06.2008 for renewal of lease,as
illegal and arbitrary.
/
Page 2 of 6 SRSJ WP No. 13267/2019
learned counsel Kumar, 2. Heard Sri Prasanna Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the representing and Smt.Hari Priya, learned counsel representing petitioner Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing on behalf of the 4* respondent.
- By order dated 26.09.2019, while ordering notice before of this Court directed the 4^^ admission, learned Single Judge from the shop in not to evict the petitioner respondent of A.P.Panchayat without following the provisions question directed to consider the representation Raj Act. In fact, it was made by the petitioner for renewal of the lease period in terms of the earlier lease agreement.
^ g
Page 3 of 6
SRSJ WP No. 13267/2019
- In the affidavit, it was contended, that the Grama Panchayat passed resolution No. 12, dated 22.05.2018 and decided to allot shops to the petitioner. The petitioner paid 100 months’ rent in advance in the year 2008 itself. The petitioner also paid enhanced rent for three years on 28.10.2016. The petitioner is also willing to pay enhanced rent at 33 1/3 percent over existing rent. Notice dated 14.08.2019 was issued to the petitioner indicatingthatthe lease was expired on 20.06.2017 and directed to vacate the premises.
- Earlier the Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 20.06.2008 and without considering the resolution thenotice was issued.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatin fact, the petitioner is ready to pay enhanced rent of 33 1/3 percent and the Gram Panchayat authorities are not accepting the lease amount.
As seen from the notice impugned, the lease periodwas expired by 20.06.2017. The Gram Panchayat intends to
Page 4 of 6 SRSJ WP No. 13267/2019
establish the Government offices and hence, directed the petitioner to surrender the shop. Though the replysaidto have been submitted along with the writ petition, however does not indicate the date or acknowledgment.
- Once the lease expires unless the authority extendsthe lease period, the petitioner cannot continue in the premises as a matter of right. Apart from that, as per the instructions of learned Standing Counsel, last amount paid by the petitione;:^ on 14.08.2019. Since then, the petitionerdidnot 'f pay any amount. In fact, this Court on 11.01.2024 observed that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount, the 4^^ respondent-Gram Panchayat shall initiate action in accordance with law.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatin spite of his efforts, he could not contact the petitionerandin fact, the petitioner is. not responding.
Page 5 of 6
SRSJ WP No. 13267/2019
impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition isliabletobe
dismissed.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
It is open to the 4*^ respondent-Gram Panchayat to
initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU assistANT^gGl^RAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
cvss
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.13267 of 2019
iW-
i./
rv.- -
DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings by the Aluru Grampanchayat to cap lease renewal were arbitrary under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to lease renewal by paying enhanced rent after expiration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Narsulal
The Aluru Grampanchayat
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The District Collector, Kurnool
The District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
