IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17213 of 2001 Between: 1 K. Srmati D/o K.Narasimha Chary, R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 Ansar Basha S/o Iqbal Ahmed, R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 Sanjeeva Kundaiah S/o Narayana, R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District. ... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENT 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent corporation in issuing the Proc.Rc.2228/2001/A1, Dt: 28.7.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and further direct the respondent-corporation to receive the rent at the rate of 33 1/3% on the rent which was existing as on 13.5.1997 up to 30.4.2000 and also further enhancement of 33 1/3% w.e.f. 1.5.2000 till 30.4.2003 and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A. SREEDHAR SC FOR MPL CORP. The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners question the notice issued by the respondent enhancing the monthly rent from Rs.2,500/-, existed as on 31.03.2000, to Rs.3,300/- from 01.04.2000 onwards. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the lessees of the shops leased out by the respondent-corporation. When the respondent corporation issued a notice in Roc.No.3153/97-A1 dated 13.05.1997 increasing the rent more than 100%, the petitioners approached this Court by way of WP.No.30082 of 1997 and this Court by order dated 17.11.1997 passed interim direction to permit the petitioners therein to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of 33 1/3%. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed by order dated 13.08.2001 quashing the impugned proceedings while directing the respondents to collect the rent from 01.05.1997 by enhancing the same by 33 1/3% up to three years i.e. up to 30th April 2000 and from 01.05.2000 the petitioners shall pay the rent enhancing the same by further 33 1/3% of the enhanced rent. As per the aforesaid judgment, the existing rent as on 31.04.2000, would be less than as mentioned in the impugned notice, therefore, the impugned notice issuing the enhancement of rents by 33 1/3% is illegal and arbitrary as the enhanced rent from 01.05.1997 to 30.04.2000 cannot be Rs.2,500/- but it would be less as this Court directed to enhance the rent only by 33 1/3%. 3. I am of the opinion that pursuant to the orders of this Court the rents have to be collected from 01.05.1997 by enhancing the same by 33 1/3% up to three years i.e. 30.04.2000 and on the then existing rent only the respondents have to levy the enhancement of 33 1/3%. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and as the petitioners have been paying the enhanced rents pursuant to the orders of this Court from 1997-2000, the respondents are under obligation to revise the demand notices, enhancing the rent by 33 1/3% only, by issuing consequential orders pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP.No.30082 of 1997. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents to take a decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act and the rules made thereunder and the Government orders from time to time. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 3, 2008 DSK