HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No.18625 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner, as party-in-person, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed the present writ petition, praying for the following relief: The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the collection of monthly rent at Rs.6,500/- and further demand of Rs.12,000/- per month in contravention to the declaration made at Rs.500/- per month as illegal and amounts to exploitation of the tenants and issue a direction, more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.3 to fix the monthly rent of the Premises G2, H.No. 12-2- 709/4, Sri Venkata Sai Residency, Navodaya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad, and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is one of the residents of Sri Venkata Sai Residency. He claims to be a tenant of Flat No.G2, which belongs to respondent No.1-private individual on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/-. Apart from the monthly rent to respondent No.1, the petitioner states that respondent No.2, without registering the Apartments Association in terms of the provisions of A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, is collecting Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance charges from each of the apartments, which is illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, the collection of monthly rent at Rs.6,500/- is contrary to the declaration made and property tax being paid by respondent No. 1 in respect of the Flat in question, is bad. The petitioner states that he filed suit O.S. No. 1614 of 2008 against respondent No.1 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction and while respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S. No. 2291 of 2008 against him for eviction, and that the action of respondent No.1 in demanding Rs.12,000/- towards monthly rent and mesne profits, is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the petitioner, who appeared party-in-person and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Greather Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, admittedly, is a tenant of respondent No.1, and any collection of rent by respondent No.1, shall be in terms of the oral/written lease deed entered into by the petitioner with respondent No.1. Admittedly, there appears to be dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 with regard to payment and collection, inasmuch as the petitioner filed suit for injunction against respondent No.1, and while respondent No.1 filed suit for eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner having occupied the flat belonging to respondent No.1 by agreeing to pay a particular amount of money towards monthly rent, now cannot seek directions to respondent No.3, to fix the monthly rent in respect of the flat in question. If any directions as sought for by the petitioner are granted, then it would amount to directing respondent No.3 to re-write the terms and conditions of oral/written lease deed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The writ petition is misconceived, and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner and respondent No.1 are at liberty to pursue their respective suits in the Courts where they are pending. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: September, 2009 KSR