HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.582 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner who sought a writ of mandamus inter alia seeking a direction against the respondents herein to act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.601, GAD dated 29/08/1979 following Memo No.1704-B1/83-7, dated 26/11/1984 and for payment of the rents to which the appellant/petitioner is entitled for the premises which is in occupation of the respondents herein. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondents herein have taken the premises of the appellant/petitioner bearing No.13-3-652/16/2 to 8 situated at Ziaguda, Hyderabad, on lease for the purpose of running a hostel. Originally, certain rents were fixed and the same were being enhanced at the rate of Rs.10,000/. Complaining that since March, 2002, no amounts have been paid towards rent and in fact, even as per the rules and orders issued by the Government themselves, the rules need to be reviewed and the rents to be enhanced as mentioned therein and therefore, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to even such enhanced rates as provided thereunder. Earlier, the appellant has filed representations and since the same were not considered, he had to file a writ petition and the same was disposed of by this Court on 31/10/2000 directing the respondents to consider his representations. Since there was no such consideration nor any orders were passed much less any amount is forthcoming, W.P.No.8356 of 2003 is filed inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the rents from March, 2002 and also at the enhanced rate to which he would be entitled. The learned Single Judge did not accede to the petitioner’s request only on the ground that he being an employee involved in embezzlement case in Crime No.6/ACB-CR/2000 which is pending on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and thereunder, an order of attachment was passed in Crl.M.P./O.P.No.5 of 2002 dated 06/01/2003, as such the appellant/petitioner would not be entitled to claim any amounts or even the rents. Hence, this appeal. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant/petitioner would be entitled to the rents in respect of the leased premises. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant is the owner of the premises which was leased out to the respondents herein. The rent has been fixed and the same has been varying with and now the same has been claimed at Rs.10,000/-. Though the appellant claimed rents as per the rules issued by the Government, there has to be a review and enhancement in that respect. Be that as it may, subject to the decision of enhancement at such a rate that would be fixed by the respondents herein by appropriate orders, the fact remains that no rents are being paid from March, 2002. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents herein vehemently contested the claim of the appellant herein that in view of the fact that the embezzlement case is pending and there is attachment order, the question of payment of any amount to the appellant does not arise. It is also further contended that in case if the appellant were found guilty in the case which has been found embezzled, there would be difficulty in recovering back the amounts or making any adjustment. We are of the view that filing of embezzlement case and pendency of the same totally stand on a different footing. It is of a criminal nature where the appellant has been prosecuted for such embezzlement. Irrespective of the result, which ultimately may come in the said case, either acquittal or conviction, the question of recovering as such straight away does not arise. Necessarily, the respondents have to take separate steps to recover the amount, in accordance with law. Therefore, especially, when the respondents are admittedly lessees of the premises belonging to the appellant herein, the question of seeking any exemption as such from the liability to pay the rents does not arise. The plea of the respondents that in view of such criminal case they need not pay the rents cannot be accepted either in law or on facts. The liability of the respondents, as lessees, stands on its own legs and is totally independent of any liability that would be found at later stage. In view of the same, we are of the view that the respondents are liable to pay the rents to the leasehold premises at the rate of Rs.10,000/- from March, 2002 and also the enhanced rate that would be decided at later stage. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed directing the respondents herein to pay the lease amount tentatively at the rate of Rs.10,000/- from March, 2002 onwards till date, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is also open for the respondents herein to pass appropriate orders in regard to the enhancement that the appellant is entitled to in accordance with rules and the orders passed by themselves. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Date: 24-09-2009 SANJAY KUMAR, J SKM