IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21446 of 2005 Between: S.Javeed Hussain S/o. S.A. Jabbar R/o. Trunk Road Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director & Commissioner of Employment & Training Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Registrar, Job Development Kadapa District. 3 Disrict Employment Officer Kadapa Kadapa District. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent not approving the budget and releasing the amount Consumption Charges payable of arrears of Electricity Charges and Water Consumption Charges payable to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's premises bearing Door No. 1/520(old Door No.1/419) situated at Marutinagar, Kadapa, to a tune of Rs. 37, 798/- as arbitrary, illegal , contrary to the rental deed executed by the Respondents in favour of the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 37,798/- together with interest thereon from the date of due till payment of same to the petitioner forthwith: and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21446 of 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of House bearing No.1/520 (old Door No.1/419) situated at Marutinagar, Kadapa, which was leased out to respondents 2 and 3 herein under a rental deed dated 01-04-1998. This writ petition is filed challenging the alleged default committed by the respondents in not paying arrears of electricity charges and water consumption charges payable to the petitioner in respect of the premises let out to the respondents 2 and 3. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits since the writ petition itself is not maintainable for enforcement of the terms and conditions of a simple lease deed which is not governed by any Statute. In the circumstances, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate common law remedy available under law. Accordingly, grantisng leave and liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 01-12-2008 KLP