Allowed

B.Masaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Dec 2015WP/39421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that without proof of delivery of possession, the respondent cannot demand rent or invalidate the petition regarding refund. Ordered refund of security deposit and advance rent with interest, and preserved petitioner's right to future auctions.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.1,00,000 security deposit and Rs.10,050 advance rent with interest at 9% p.a. from respective dates within four weeks.

B.Masaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 39421 of 2015

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy, counsel for 4^th respondent.

¶4

2. Although the petitioner had questioned the action of 4^th respondent in issuing notification dt.29.11.2015 for conduct of auction of the above shop, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out any grounds for setting it aside. However, there is truth in the allegation of the petitioner that he was not delivered possession of subject shop No.7 by the 4^th respondent, since the Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent has not been able to produce any document evidencing delivery of possession of the said shop to the petitioner, after the petitioner became a highest bidder in the open auction for lease of the shop held in the year 2014.

¶5

3. The Lease Deed produced by the standing counsel for the 4^th respondent is dt.01.12.2014, but it does not contain the signature of the petitioner. Therefore, the recitals therein cannot be said to be binding on the petitioner.

¶6

4. So, the 4^th respondent, even without delivering possession of the subject shop to the petitioner, is not entitled to demand Rs.26,800/- as rents from the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2015 to 31.10.2015.

¶7

5. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to refund the security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,050/towards three months advance rent to the petitioner with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of such deposit, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the 4^th respondent intends to give the subject shop on lease, the petitioner shall be entitled to participate in the public auction to be conducted by the 4^th respondent, if he belongs to the social status for which the shop is reserved according to the terms and conditions of the 4^th respondent.

¶8

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶10

____________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶11

9^th December, 2015 cbs

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No. 39421 of 2015

¶14

9^th December, 2015

¶15

cbs

B.Masaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Masaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Atluri Hemanth S/o Umamaheswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by

Samskruti College of Engineering and Technology Vs The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal

M/s.Siva Sai Security Services, Door No.85/194, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

B. Sri Ramulu s/o Pedda Sunkanna, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

U.Venkata Raja Reddy Vs The Executive Engineer

N. v. Ambadas, Vs The State of Telangana