IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5652 of 2001 Between: Raman Gupta, S/o. late Ratanalal Gupta, R/o. 4-1-968, Abid Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep . by its Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Estate Officer, Govt., Of A.P., Revenue Department, at; Secunderabad., .....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 action of the Respondents in applying and enforcing the demand under the A.P. (Secunderabad Area) Land Administration Rules, 1976, as per the impugned demand dt. 15.1.2001 (Annexure VII) with respect of the Petitioner's application, dt. 18.7.2000 (Annexure III) regarding the petitioner's premises No. 141, Durga Bhavan, Kingsway, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, is wholly illegal, arbitrary; and ultra vires the powers of the respondents from making or enforcing the impugned demand, as per Annexure VII, dt. 15.1.2001 and consequently, direct the respondents to renew the lease without insisting upon the said impugned demand (Annexure VII ) in the interest of justice and fair play, and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MPAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5652 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the respondents in applying and enforcing a demand under the Andhra Pradesh (Secunderabad Area) Land Administration Rules, 1976 vide the impugned demand notice dated 15.01.2001. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to renew the lease in his favour without insisting upon the payment of the sum demanded by way of the impugned notice dated 15.01.2001. The facts as demonstrated by the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition are as follows: The predecessor in interest of the petitioner, one Smt.Rani Janumpally Lalitha Devi was granted a lease by the Military Estate Oﬃcer, Secunderabad Circle in respect of the property bearing premises No.141, known as “Durga Bhavan”, Kings Way, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. The said lease was executed by way of three separate registered lease deeds bearing document Nos.1170, 1171 and 1172, dated 13.01.1941 and the lease was initially for a period of 30 years, renewable upto 90 years. The petitioner claims to be the successor in interest of the original lessee through her daughter, Kum.Sashikala. After the expiry of the original lease period in the year 1970, the lease was renewed under three registered lease deeds bearing document Nos.3091, 3092 and 3093, dated 21.03.1970 and the renewed lease was for a period of 30 years with eﬀect from 25.08.1970. It is stated that Kum.Sashikala, the daughter of the original lessee, executed a registered Will bearing document No.33/95, dated 08.03.1995, bequeathing all her properties in favour of Sri Ratanlal Gupta, the father of the petitioner herein, who was appointed as the Executor as well as the beneﬁciary under the said Will. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the said properties and more importantly, the subject leased property, after the expiry of his father, Sri Ratanlal Gupta in the year 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the expiry of the renewed lease period of 30 years on 24.08.2000, he made an application dated 18.07.2000 seeking renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years in terms of the original lease deed, which provided for the lease to be renewed upto a maximum period of 90 years. However, the Estate Oﬃcer, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secunderabad, the second respondent herein by his proceedings dated 22.11.2000 informed the petitioner that the lease rent payable for the renewal would be based on the basic value and demanded a sum of Rs.24,96,645/- towards the lease rent allegedly payable for the renewal for a period of three years from 2000 to 2003. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.11.2000 bringing it to the notice of the respondent authorities that the Andhra Pradesh (Secunderabad Area) Land Administration Rules, 1976 could not be made applicable to the subject lease, which was in continuation of a lease granted as long back as in the year 1940. Various other contentions were also raised by the petitioner on facts and the petitioner ultimately requested the second respondent to reconsider the matter and grant renewal in terms of the renewal clause in the lease deed executed in the year 1970. However, the second respondent by the impugned proceeding bearing No.4/786, dated 15.01.2001 reiterated the demand for payment of a sum of Rs.24,96,645/- for renewing the lease for a period of three years, failing which, he threatened action for resumption of the land. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. This Court, by order dated 29.03.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.7208 of 2001 in W.P.No.5652 of 2001, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceeding dated 15.01.2001. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the second respondent admitting to the factum of the grant of lease in favour of Smt.Rani Janumpally Lalitha Devi and the subsequent renewal thereof in the year 1970. Reliance is placed upon the Memo No.84120/Assn.III(1)/94-1, dated 24.12.1995 issued by the Government to support the claim that the petitioner would be liable to pay the lease rent on the basis of the current basic value of the property. It is stated that the demand for Rs.24,96,645/- was raised on the basis of the computation made on the said basic value of the property and that the same is lawful and valid. It is also stated that the petitioner failed to make the payment as requested and rushed to this Court by way of the present Writ Petition challenging the Memo dated 15.01.2001. The counter-aﬃdavit also raises various other contentions, including one with regard to locus of the petitioner to claim under the Will dated 08.03.1995 executed by Kum.Sashikala, the daughter of the original lessee. It is also stated that as per the Memo dated 24.12.1995, various other conditions are imposed with regard to the renewal of the lease and accordingly, the petitioner has no alternative but to abide by the same and pay the amount demanded in terms of the said Memo. Heard Sri Sunil Ganu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the lease deed dated 21.03.1970, executed by the second respondent in favour of the original lessee renewing the lease for a period of 30 years from 25.08.1970 to 24.08.2000, would show that further renewal of the lease is envisaged under Clause III thereof. Clause III states to the eﬀect that the lease shall be renewed subject to the condition that the renewed term along with the original term shall not exceed in the aggregate the period of 90 years and further provides that the renewed lease would be granted only at such rents within a percentage of enhancement of 50% of the rent which shall have been reserved by any lease either original or renewed immediately preceding the renewed lease of the premises. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years from 2000-2030 in accordance with this renewal clause and that the demand raised by the respondents, being at variance with this renewal clause, is illegal and unsustainable. In eﬀect, the petitioner is seeking speciﬁc performance of the renewal clause No.III in the lease deed dated 21.03.1970. Whatever may be the nature of the demand raised by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to assert and prove his entitlement for speciﬁc performance as per this renewal clause. Further, various other disputed questions of fact would arise on the basis of the pleadings referred to hereinabove such as the locus of the petitioner to claim the leased property under the will executed by the daughter of the original lessee and the applicability of the Memo dated 24.12.1995 to the present case on the facts established. These are all matters which, by their very nature, are not amenable to judicial review in a Writ Petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not for this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, to decree speciﬁc performance of the renewal clause as sought for by the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore found to be misconceived. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and it is for him to avail such appropriate remedy. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded this aspect and sought the leave of this Court to permit the petitioner to avail such alternative remedy and to protect his interest in the meanwhile. This submission ﬁnds favour with this Court and the petitioner is permitted to invoke such other remedies as are available to him in law in respect of the issues raised in the present Writ Petition, within a period of two months from today. The respondents are directed to maintain status quo for a period of two months. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 30.10.2008 Note: Furnish CC in one week B/o va