THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6724 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning proceedings, dated 04.03.2005, issued by the respondent - Executive Officer of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vijayawada, Krishna District, in Rc.No.C1/3146/2002. By the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent has demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- and he was asked to vacate and hand over the shop to Devasthanam. In the shopping complex owned by Devasthanam, the petitioner was offered a shop free of rent with a condition to sell soft drinks at Rs.1/- less than the Market Retail Price to the pilgrims. By taking approval from the Commissioner, the respondent issued proceedings on 20.07.2002. In the said proceedings, there is no indication of time period but for the first time, in proceedings, dated 13.10.2004, issued in Rc.No.C1/3146/2002, it is stated that the rent free accommodation is provided to the petitioner only for a period of one year and such period is from 20.07.2002 to 20.07.2003 as such he is liable to pay the rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month from 21.07.2003 onwards. By calculating the rent at that rate, which was being charged in respect of similarly measured shops in the shopping complex, the petitioner was demanded to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. When he has not paid the said amount, the impugned notice is issued demanding an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- towards arrears computing @ Rs.15,000/- per month from 21.07.2003 onwards. At the stage of admission, this Court by order, dated 29.03.2005, granted suspension of the impugned notice on condition of petitioner paying monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- from the date of the impugned notice. It is stated that since then, the petitioner had been paying rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month and also the increased rent of Rs.35,000/- per month from April, 2010. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as much as no time period is fixed in original proceedings, dated 20.07.2002, the respondent cannot demand any rent from him in respect of the shop in question. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, while admitting the fact that the respondent issued proceedings allotting rent free accommodation to the petitioner on condition of his selling soft drinks at Rs.1/- less than the Market Retail Price, it is stated that the license has been issued for a period of one year only, as such, demand was made for payment of rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month, which is being charged to the adjoining shops, from 21.07.2003 onwards. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the orders passed by the respondent. A perusal of proceedings, dated 20.07.2002 issued to the petitioner for sale of soft drinks of Coca-cola Company, shows that no time period is indicated but at the same time, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was informed about the period of one year in proceedings, dated 13.10.2004. According to the respondent, they were charging Rs.15,000/- per month for the similarly placed mulgies as such this Court passed interim order on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.15,000/- per month from March, 2005 onwards. When the matter is taken up today, an additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of communication given to the petitioner on 13.10.2004, he has deposited the rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month for a period of 5 months i.e. October, November, December, 2004 and January, 2005 and February, 2005. It is also submitted that even though there is no further direction from this Court, when the respondent has increased the rents of adjoining shops with equal measurements to Rs.35,000/- from April, 2010, the petitioner has agreed for the same and is paying the same rent to the respondent. It is to be noted that though for the first time, the petitioner was intimated time period by proceedings, dated 13.10.2004, there is no indication of time period in the earliest proceedings, dated 20.07.2002, as such, unless there is a communication with regard to fixation of period in the proceedings issued to the petitioner, the respondent cannot charge rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month till September, 2004. In that view of the matter, as much as by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of issuance of the impugned notice and in view of the fact that he is presently paying rent @ Rs.35,000/- per month and has also filed additional affidavit agreeing to pay the rent as directed and enhanced by the respondent on par with the other shop owners, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned demand of the respondent to the extent of charging Rs.15,000/- per month from 21.07.2003 to 20.10.2004. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the respondent to pay the rents as and when enhanced on par with the other shop owners. He shall also undertake that in case of default, it is open to the respondent to take steps for his eviction. Such undertaking of the petitioner shall be filed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the impugned notice is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni