IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12020 of 2003 Between: 1 Shaik Hamid Ali, S/o.Late Shaik Mohammed Ali, R/o 19-2-197/36, Ramnasthpura, Hyderabad. 2 Shaik Mumtaz Ali, s/o Shaik Mohammed Ali, R/o 19-2-197/36, Ramnasthpura, Hyderbad 3 Shaik Akbar Ali, S/o. Shaik Mohammed Ali, R/o 19-2-197/36, Ramnasthpura, Hyderbad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Housing Board, rep. by Executive Engineer, Gruhakalpa, M.J Road, Hyderabad. 2 Competent Authority, A.P.Sate Housing Hoard, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Authority-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 3rd respondent in CMA No. 140 of 2002 and also declare that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06-12-2001 is without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the shop Nos. 12 and 13 M.J. Road, Hyderabad till the claim for enhancement of rent is adjudicated with notice and opportunity to the petitioner and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12020 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioners’ father was a tenant of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) shop Nos.12 and 13 situated at M.J Road, Hyderabad. The lease commenced in April 1979 under a lease agreement dated 02.04.1979. As per Regulation No.16 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Shops) Rental Regulations, 1975 (Regulations, for brevity), lease will be for ﬁve years from the date of execution of rental agreement. Under Regulation No.17 APHB is empowered to renew lease for another term not exceeding ﬁve years without conducting public auction if the present lessee agrees to renew the lease duly enhancing rent by 50%. Accordingly, APHB enhanced the rent from Rs.795/- (original rent) to Rs.1086.25. Petitioners did not object. But, they failed to pay the enhanced rent. The Executive Engineer has initiated action under Sections 52 and 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity). The petitioners raised objections, inter alia, contending that in view of the pending Court proceedings, enhanced rent cannot be collected. The competent authority, second respondent herein, by an order dated 14.08.1992, upheld the power of APHB to renew lease on enhancement of rent by 50%. However, he asked APHB not to collect enhanced rent in view of pending Court proceedings. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of second respondent that in a batch of cases challenging enhancement of rent, High Court upheld power of APHB to enhance rent by 50%. Therefore, second respondent again issued notice to the petitioners, who appeared and ﬁled their objections on 28.07.2001. On considering the same the competent authority passed orders on 06.12.2001 directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of accumulated enhanced rent without penal interest and also continue to pay the enhanced rent. Feeling aggrieved by the same, appeals under Section 55 of the Act, being C.M.A.Nos.140, 141 and 142 of 2002, before the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, were ﬁled. By impugned order dated 29.04.2003 appeals ﬁled by the petitioners were dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to pay enhanced rent with penal interest and damages on or before 29.06.2003. This common order is assailed in the writ petition. There is no dispute that in W.A.No.1263 of 1989 and batch this Court upheld power of APHB to enhance rent under Regulation No.17 of Regulations. In that view of the matter, this Court does not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or invalidity in the impugned order. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioners have paid 50% of arrears of enhanced rent and also been paying enhanced rent. Even if it is not done, it shall be open to APHB to give a demand claiming enhanced rent and arrears thereof. As the petitioners are continuing in lease from 1979 it is also open to APHB to take necessary action under Regulation No.17 of the Regulations. Further, liberty is also reserved to the petitioners to approach the ﬁrst respondent for any redressal with regard to accumulated arrears of enhanced rent. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.09.2008 vs To 1 The Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J Road, Hyderabad. 2 Competent Authority, A.P.Sate Housing Hoard, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Authority-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}