J C SREEVASTHAVA Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of a proprietary concern by name "Deltronics" which he set up for manufacturing electronic components in Shed No. B-1 allotted to him by the 2nd respondent-Corporation in its Technocrat Industrial Estate at Balanagar. By letter No. SIDC/EA G/TIE/B-1/90, dated 31-5-1990, the 2nd respondent-Corporation, in continuation of its termination notice dated 26-3-1990 issued the following notice :-- "1. That your tenancy for shed No. B-1, TIE, Balanagar was terminated w.e.f. 26-4-1990 by us, for the reasons mentioned in our notice cited above. Thereafter, you represented through letter dt. 17-4-90 stating that the amount will be paid before 15-6-90. Your request is not acceded. We had given notice dt. 23-5-90 informing you that the shed would be taken up by the Corporation on 28-5-90 under Panchanama. In spite of our notice you kept the unit locked on 28-5-90. 2. It is now clear that you are not prepared to hand over the vacant possession of the unit and you are only adopting the delaying methods. As such the Corporation is left with no other alternative except to break open the locks of the unit on 3-6-90 in the presence of local Panchas, and you are requested to be present there on that day. 3. You are, therefore, requested to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of the shed B-l, TIE, Balanagar to the Estate Officer of the Corporation on or before 2-6-90 and obtain a receipt to that effect, failing which, we will be constrained to take possession of the shed and premises on 3-6-90 in the presence of Panchas. 4. We further inform you that besides the action of the eviction, "the Corporation has every right to recover the balance defaulted amount of Rs. 7,141.00 together with interest from you either by filing suit in the court of law or by moving the District Collector, under R. R. Act, for recovery of the dues as land revenue."

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate order, calling "for the records of the proceeding of the second respondent" in the said letter dated 31-5-1990 and quashing the same.

(3.) The petitioner states that he was allotted the said Shed No. B-1 by the 2nd respondent through its allotment letter dated 12-7-1974 and that subsequently, he entered into sale-cum-lease agreement and took possession of the said shed. According to him, the said agreement provided for payment of the 'monthly instalment at Rs. 671.00 for a period of 20 years commencing from the date of allotment i.e., 1974 and for execution of a pucca sale deed to the allottee after the full payment is made. He states that he fell into arrears by the year 1987 and that he filed Writ Petition No.4492 of 1987 when the 2nd respondent resorted to oral threats to re-take possession of the said shed. This Court, pending the said writ petition, granted interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 5967 of 1987 and after he cleared of the entire arrears in instalments and complied with the orders of this Court, the said writ petition was finally closed on 13-8-1987. Subsequently also, he fell into arrears. The 2nd respondent gave a registered notice through Advocate on 28-3-1990 calling upon him to clear the arrears of monthly rent which accrued to Rs. 11,891.00up to 31-3-1990. Thereafter, he made a payment of Rs. 5,000.00 through cheque on 17-4-1990 and sought by letter time up to 15-6-1990 for payment of the balance amount. But the 2nd respondent refused to give him time and by letter dated 31-5-1990, received by him on 2-6-1990, informed him that his request for clearance of the balance of arrears before 15-6-1990 was not accepted and that, therefore, the agreement of sale-cum-lease between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was terminated and that the 2nd respondent proposed to re-take possession of the said Shed B-1. The petitioner then offered to pay Rs. 2,000.00 in cash and further sum of Rs. 2,641.00 by cheque to the Bill Collector of the 2nd respondent on 2-6-1990. But the Bill Collector of the 2nd respondent sought instructions from his higher authorities through Telephone and refused to receive the same. According to the petitioner on 3-6-1990, the Officers of the 2nd respondent-Corporation came to the said shed B-l and over locked the petitioner's business premises.