Allowed

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma v. Eluru Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014WP/698/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition challenging enhanced rent and arrears demands by the Eluru Municipality against shop leaseholders. The petitioners argued the demand was excessive without prior notice. The High Court directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice for arrears calculated without interest, effective from the first 2008 demand, while confirming the right to enhance rent every thre

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to issue a notice within 15 days demanding arrears of rent by deducting amounts already paid, calculated without interest and including 33 1/3% enhancement for the year 2008.

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma Vs Eluru… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.698 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶5

2. The first petitioner states that he had established a medical shop under the name and style of “Uma Medicals” during the year 1987. When the Eluru Municipality constructed a shopping complex known as the Municipal Prakasam Complex at Narsimharaopeta, Eluru, he had taken one shop bearing Shop No.4 in the said complex on lease basis after entering into a lease agreement with the respondent. Initially, the rent was Rs.365/- per month and it was enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing the Writ Petition, it was Rs.867/- per month. Later on the Eluru Municipality was upgraded as the Municipal Corporation in the year 2006. Similarly, the second petitioner established a book stall in Shop No.16 in the same shopping complex and the rent was Rs.996/per month as on the date of filing the Writ Petition. When the Municipality enhanced the rents during the year 1993, the first petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 1993 before the learned I Additional District Munsif, Eluru, for declaration to continue him as a tenant on the existing rent, and the second petitioner filed O.S.No.79 of 1993 seeking identical relief. The said suits were decreed on 01.10.1996 and 05.12.1996. When the respondent tried to evict the petitioners by sealing their shops, they filed W.P.No.5438 of 2008 and this Court, by order dated 22.04.2008, directed the respondent to open the seals of the petitioners’ shops, subject to payment of the enhanced rent pursuant to the notice that may be given by the respondent and on further paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by the first petitioner and Rs.1,50,000/- by the second petitioner, which would be subject to the result of the said Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners deposited Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on 19^th and 20^th May, 2008, and they have also paid rents

¶6

up to June 2008. The respondent issued a notice on 09.05.2008 enhancing the rent by 400% with effect from 01.04.2008. The rent of the first petitioner’s shop was enhanced from Rs.867/- to Rs.3,653/- per month with effect from 01.04.2008, and the rent of the second petitioner’s shop was enhanced from Rs.996/- to Rs.4,197/- per month with effect from 01.04.2008. The respondent issued an order on 27.11.2008 directing the first petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,24,234/- and the second petitioner was directed to pay Rs.4,56,790/- towards arrears of rent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶7

3. This Court, by order dated 02.03.2009, directed the respondent to open the seals of the petitioners’ shops and permit them to do the business. The first petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- while the second petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the respondent within a period of two weeks.

¶8

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting the lease in favour of the petitioners, but stated that shop No.4 in the Prakasam Municipal Shopping Complex was originally leased out to one Vengala Peraiah in the year 1978 in public auction conducted pursuant to resolution No.158, dated 13.06.1978. However, the lease was recognized in favour of the first petitioner in the year 1990 for a period of three years from 31.03.1990 to 31.03.1993. The Municipality issued a notice on 16.02.1993 to vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease period on 31.03.1993. Against the same, the first petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 1993 before the learned I Additional District Munsif, Eluru. The said suit was decreed on 01.10.1996 giving liberty to the Municipality to fix the rent over the suit schedule shop by following due process of law. Similarly, Shop No.16 was leased out in favour of one Sri Mallareddy Govardhan Rao in the year 1978 and the same was transferred in favour of the second petitioner in the year 1982. When the respondent issued a notice for eviction on 16.02.1993 before expiry of

¶9

the lease on 31.03.1993, the second petitioner filed O.S.No.79 of 1993 and the same was decreed on 05.12.1996 directing the Municipality to calculate the rent as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and the relevant rules. In pursuance of the decree, the respondent issued notices enhancing the rent at 33 1/3% for every three years from 1996 onwards by following the proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. The petitioners ignored those notices and refused to take them. Even in the year 2008 when the respondent served notices dated 10.01.2008 by enhancing the rent from the year 1993 the petitioners refused to take them. In those circumstances only, the shops of the petitioners were sealed which lead to the filing of W.P.No.5438 of 2008 by the petitioners. The petitioners have been paying rents at the old rates, even though the prevailing rent is much more. The first petitioner is in arrears of Rs.4,86,684/- and the second petitioner is in arrears of Rs.5,78,114/-.

¶10

5. It is borne out from the records that the petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.14395 of 2008 challenging the enhancement of rent and the same was disposed of by this Court on 10.09.2008 upholding the power of the Corporation to enhance the rent and to treat the special notice issued to the petitioners as a show cause notice and giving them liberty to submit their explanation as to how the enhancement of rents at the rate indicated above was unjustified. The petitioners submitted their explanations on 04.11.2008 and after considering the same, the respondent passed an order on 27.11.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.4,24,234/- from the first petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him, and demanding an amount of Rs.4,56,790/from the second petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,50,000/paid by him.

¶11

6. The payment of rent due to enhancement has been in dispute between the parties since 1993 and the suits filed by the petitioners were

¶12

decreed in the year 1996. Thereafter, when the special notice was issued demanding the amount, the petitioners challenged the same in W.P.No.14395 of 2008 and the same was disposed of on 10.09.2008. The power of the respondent to enhance the rent was upheld.

¶13

7. Now the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent cannot insist for payment of such huge arrears on the basis of mathematical calculations without issuing any demand notice at the earlier point of time. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there are other shop owners who have been paying the rent at the enhanced rate and the petitioners are not ready for payment of the said amount.

¶14

8. A perusal of the impugned notices indicate that from 1993 to 1996 the mathematical calculations for enhancement of rent at 33.33% was calculated and the interest was charged on the arrears of rent. It is settled that the respondent cannot recover the amount for a period of three years prior to the date of payment.

¶15

9. Since the first demand was made in the year 2008, it is just and equitable to direct the first petitioner to pay the amount @ Rs.2740/- per month in respect of shop No.4, and to direct the second petitioner to pay the amount @ Rs.3148/- per month in respect of shop No.16 and enhance the same by

¶16

33 1/3% in the year 2008 and accordingly calculate the same without charging any interest thereon. The respondent is accordingly directed to issue a notice within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order demanding the arrears of rent from the petitioners by duly deducting the amount already paid pursuant to the orders of this Court for opening the seals of the shops. The petitioners shall comply with the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice from the respondent.

¶17

10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous

¶18

petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)

¶20

09.09.2014 vs

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma v. Eluru Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma v. Eluru Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendrakumar Sahu S/o Rajendraprasad Sahu Vs The Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Gosula Venu Madhav Vs The Superintendent Of Police

Sulochana Devi Sharma Vs T Narahari

M/s. Sri Narasa Raju Modern Rice Mill Rep. by its partner Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjeneya Sarma, Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation

Mutta Appala Naidu Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology