@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:8237 of 2001 DATED: 17-01-2008 Between: 1. Tulja Prasad and 3 others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the third respondent through his proceedings dated 07- 10-1998 as confirmed by the second respondent through the order dated 25-10-1999 and the action of the first respondent dated 20-04- 2001 as arbitrary, illegal unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to pass appropriate order in the matter. The petitioner has been claiming that his family is residing in two room tenament situated at Sri Tulja Bhavan, Dharmasala, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. He alleged that he is closely related to hereditary trustee and also belonged to the family of the founders of the fourth respondent-institution. He worked as manager of the institution for some time. He submitted that he was permitted to reside in the two room tenament where he is presently residing by the founder, member in 1954 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. As per the trust deed the accommodation was to be provided to the relatives of the founder member. Accordingly, his family and others were allowed to continue to reside in the premises. The third respondent through his proceedings dated 26-08-1987 regularised the tenancy and he was asked to pay Rs.100/- per month and he was regularly paying the same. The fourth respondent refused to receive the rent in 1985 and he was depositing the rent in the bank. The fourth respondent raised objection regarding the payment of rents in the bank. He continued to send the rents by money order which was refused by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent filed O.A.No.36 of 1990 for eviction of the petitioner and it was allowed on 19-03-1989. The fourth respondent filed an application before the third respondent seeking a direction against the petitioner for depositing the rent of Rs.800/- per month. He filed a counter and the third respondent issued orders on 07-10-1998 directing him to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Aggrieved by the order in O.A.No.36 of 1990 and the order dated 07-10-1998 passed by the third respondent he preferred revision petition Nos.32 and 35 of 1999 before the second respondent and the second respondent granted status-quo during the pendency of the revision petitions and ultimately a common order was passed on 25-10-1999 dismissing both the revision petitions confirming the orders passed by the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders in Revision Petition Nos.32 and 35 of 1999 dated 25-10-1999 preferred a revision petition to the first respondent and he also filed W.P.No.24123 of 1999 before this Court and this Court stayed the dispossession pending the revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent did not consider the request of the petitioner and the petitioner continued to pay at the rate of 500/- towards rent since 1999 till date. It is further contended by the petitioner that the other tenements were allowed to continue by paying nominal rents and discrimination has been shown to him. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition requesting to quash the proceedings of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. The first respondent in the order dated 20-04-2001 observed that the request of the petitioner for regularization of the tenancy has already been dismissed by the Commissioner of Endowments by order dated 05-01-1994 and the petitioner is deliberately dragging the litigation for years together and is actually squatting over the property of the public institution which is detrimental to the interest of the institution and also not deposited the reasonable amount of Rs.800/- per month as directed by the Deputy Commissioner through the order dated 07-10-1998 in O.A.No.36 of 1990. The petitioner is due to pay a rent of Rs.84,000/- to the institution which gets more than Rs.8,000/- per month by letting out the same. The Regional Joint Commissioner i.e., the second respondent passed an elaborate order dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. No fresh contentions or grounds are raised in the revision petition for considering the request referred to para 1 above and further as per the documents it is established that he is an encroacher falling under Section 83 of the Act. No documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner for considering his case. Therefore, it is not reasonable to interfere with the order of the second respondent. Therefore, the petition has been dismissed. It is observed by the respondents that the petitioner has no documentary evidence to show that the premises was let out to him in 1954. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order directing him to pay Rs.800/- per month and he failed to pay the same. The orders have been passed by all the forums against the petitioner and the petitioner approached this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of writ of mandamus. The petitioner did not point out whether there is any illegality in the orders passed by any of the respondents in the impugned proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantum of rent is excessive and the amount of Rs.500/- per month as fixed by this Court at the time of passing interim direction is quite reasonable, therefore, the amount has to be reduced. But the Deputy Commissioner after considering the factual aspects, the accommodation and the rents prevailing in the local area fixed the amount at the rate of Rs.800/- per month and this Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with the rent fixed by the Deputy Commissioner which was confirmed by other respondents. Since no illegality has been pointed out by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ 17th January, 2008 SKM