IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21140 of 2007 Between: Surajuddin Shaik, S/o Adam Shaik, r/o H.No.8-43-20/1, Plot No.77, Road No.2, Srinivasa Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad-500 039. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Hyderabad, A.P., 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, R.R.District, District Collector, Office Premises, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the 5% enhanced rent as per the letter dated 3-5-2001 of the third respondent with eﬀect from 1999 and the house rent from December, 2006 to April, 2007 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, contrary to the proceedings dated 3-5-2001 of the third respondent and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21140 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.8-43- 20/1, Plot No. 77, Road No.2, Srinivasa Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Ranga Reddy District-3rd respondent took the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- w.e.f. 11-2-2000. When the 3rd respondent has not paid the rent, he submitted a representation for payment of rents as well as enhancement of rent. His representation did not yield any result. Therefore, he chooses to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The factual aspect of premises of the petitioner being taken on lease by the 3rd respondent is not in dispute. He submitted representation to the 3rd respondent for payment of rents as well as enhancement of rents as per the Government Orders issued in respect of leased premises. Indeed the 3rd respondent under letter dated 5-3-2006 directed the petitioner to clarify as to how he arrived at Rs.6,500/- rent per month. The petitioner submitted reply to the said letter. Thereafter, he also presented representation dated 8-2-2006 seeking payment of the rents due to him as well as enhancement of the rent at 15% as per the Government orders. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the payment of the rents due to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 7th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21140 OF 2007 7th August, 2008.