IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5952 of 2005 Between: 1 Md. Hussain, S/o. Late Md. Ghani, Male Muslim, Shop No.1, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 2 Iyalapaka Himaleswara Rao, S/o. I. Srreramulu, Male Hindu, Shop No.3, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 3 Uddam Singh, S/o. Sohan singh, Male Hindu, Shop No.4, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 4 N. Appa Rao, S/o. Guruvulu, Male Hindu, Shop No.5, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 5 Lallu Ram Sharma, S/o. Sharma, Male Hindu, Shop No.6&7, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 6 G. Ramana, S/o. Late Chinna Ramana, Male Hindu, Shop No.8, Suryabagh Municipal Shopping Complex, Visakhapatnam -20 ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 14-12-2004 which was served on us on 08-02-2005 to the extent of enhancing the rent retrospectively from 1-4-2000 to 31-03-2006 in case of Petitioners 1 to 4 and from 22-06-2000 to 21-06-2005 for my shop No.6 and from 26-02-2003 to 25-2-2006 to my Shop No.7 and from 23-03-2003 to 22- 03-2006 for the 6th Petitioner is arbitrary, capricious exorbitant and barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set -aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 14-12-2004 to the extent of enhancing the rent from 1-4-2000 in case of the petitioners 1 to 4, from 22-06- 2000 to 21-06-2005 for my Shop No.6 and from 26-02-2003 to 25-2-2006 to my Shop No.7 and from 23-03-2003 to 22-03-2006 for the 6th Petitioner with retrospective effect or to pass any other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5952 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioners question the order of the respondent in Rc.No.4479/80/A4/Circle-I (Rev), dated 14-12-2004, regarding enhancement of the rent by 35% over the existing rent, while continuing the existing lease for a further period of three years from the date of expiry. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the existing agreement, the petitioners are liable to pay only 33-1/3% over the existing rent and accordingly, they made a representation, dated 10-02-2005, which was not considered and disposed of. It is stated that the rents cannot be enhanced with retrospective effect. I am not inclined to accept the said contention because as per the terms and conditions of Clause 42 of the lease agreement, if the existing lessee desires to continue the lease, the licence for the lease be extended for a further period of three years, on an enhanced rent not less than 33- 1/3% of the existing rent. But, in the instant case, it is stated that the respondent enhanced the rent by 35% instead of 33-1/3% over the existing rent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that minimum enhancement can be 33-1/3%, but it can be more than 33-1/3% and, therefore, the rent has been enhanced by 35%. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to whether enhancement of the rent by 35% instead of 33-1/3% is illegal and arbitrary. As admittedly, the representation of the petitioners, dated 10-02-2005, is pending, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of the said representation. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners, dated 10- 02-2005, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 07-03-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}