IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6764 OF 2004 Dt.02.2.2010 Between: B. Sakkubai … Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari Eluru and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Radhakrishna Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.P. for Social Welfare THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6764 OF 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare clause 3 of G.O. Ms. No.35 Finance & Planning (Finance Wing-EBS-PWD) Department, dt.27.2.1997, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of houses bearing Nos.5-156, 5-156/1, 5-156/2 and 5-156/3 in Tallapudi in West Godavari District. Respondent No.3 approached the petitioner for letting out the above mentioned buildings for running a hostel for students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities. Respondent No.3 addressed letter dt.15.11.2001 to respondent No.2 wherein he sought for permission to take the petitioner’s buildings on lease. The petitioner also, through her letter dt.20.11.2001 addressed to respondent No.2, gave her consent wherein she offered her buildings at a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month or as fixed by the Government. Accordingly, the respondents have taken the buildings on lease. Admittedly there is no written lease agreement between the parties. However, by proceedings dt.9.3.2002 of respondent No.2, the rent for the building in question was fixed at Rs.3,617/- per month after taking 2411 sq.ft. as the net usable area. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare clause 3 of G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the contractual rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. At the hearing Sri P. Radhakrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997, to the extent it has restricted the net usable area to the maximum extent of the net carpet area plus 10% of the carpet area, is wholly arbitrary. He invited my attention to the “annexure proforma” issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tallapudi Mandal Parishad wherein it is clearly stated that the carpet area is 203.72 sq. mts. and net usable area is 618.22 sq. mts. According to the learned Counsel, the proceedings dt.9.3.2002 of respondent No.2 showing 2,411 sq. ft. as net usable area by applying G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997 is illegal and arbitrary. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents have agreed to pay a particular rent disregarding G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997. Even in the letter dt.20.11.2001 addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.2, the petitioner has categorically stated that she is agreeable for letting out the property at the rent of Rs.10,000/- per month or as decided by the Government. It is worthwhile noticing that much before the petitioner had let out her building to the respondents, G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997 was issued and the said G.O. was very much in force when the building was let out by the petitioner. Clause 3 of the said G.O. clearly stipulated that the rent payable to the owner of a private building should be only for net usable area which cannot be more than the net carpet area plus 10%. The petitioner is, therefore, expected to be aware of the existence of the said G.O. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Clause 3 of the said G.O. is arbitrary. A private building owner cannot claim a legal or constitutional right to let out his building for rent to the Government or its agencies. The transaction of letting a building on rent falls in the realm of a contract. While taking the building on rent, the Government acts in the sphere of contract like any other private person does. It is, therefore, within the discretion of the Government and its agencies to fix modalities and the conditions subject to which they take the private buildings on lease. The petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right to curtail such a discretion of the Government. The petitioner has absolute freedom either to give her building on lease or not. If she is not agreeable to the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997, no one can force the petitioner to let out her building. The petitioner, having chosen to let out her building despite existence of the restrictions contained in the above mentioned G.O., cannot be heard to say that she is entitled to receive rent on the basis of the entire net usable area disregarding the conditions contained in the said G.O. In this view of the matter, I do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in clause-3 of G.O. Ms. No.35, dt.27.2.1997 restricting the total net usable area to net carpet area plus 10% of such carpet area only. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.8786 of 2004 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02.2.2010 bnr