THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :12047 of 2010 Date: 4.6.2010 Between: M. Siva Prasad Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the Director, Insurance Medical Services(ESI Hospitals), Secunderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: C.Upendra Counsel for Respondent : Mr. G. Ravinder Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :12047 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings Rc. No.37/A/ESID/2010, dated 6.5.2010 issued by Respondent No.3 without considering the petitioner’s representations dated 9.5.2010 and 19.5.2010 for payment of enhanced rents. I have heard Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is the owner of the building in question situated in Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. The said building was let out to the respondents for running E.S.I. Dispensary in the year 1995 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1860/- under a lease deed. According to the petitioner, the respondents have been renewing the lease from tine to time and the lease last renewed is valid upto 20.2.2010. When the petitioner made representations for enhancement of rent, Respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings, whereby, he informed the petitioner that the building will be vacated on 31.5.2010 and that he should take over possession of the same. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the lease agreement, the respondents are bound to give three months’ notice to the petitioner for vacation of the building and that the impugned notice is therefore illegal. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. Even according to the petitioner, the renewal last made was upto 20.2.2010. Therefore, in the absence of an existing lease, the respondents are entitled to handover vacant possession. At any rate, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is contractual in nature and the petitioner is entitled to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redresssal of his grievance. In this view of the matter, it is not a fit case for this Court to grant any relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and in such an event, the Civil Court shall decide the case without being influenced by the findings rendered in this writ petition. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 4th June, 2010 pnb