P ANJAMMA Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.25953 of 2011 is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the alleged provisional notice/order, dated 03-01-2011 followed by the order, dated 7-05-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and the final order passed by the 2nd respondent in his notice, dated 02-09-2011 wherein huge amounts are demanded to be paid by each of the tenants towards arrears of enhanced differential monthly rent with penal interest at 12% per annum, qualified illegally as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice offending Articles 14,19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and without authority or power and in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') read with Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Shops) Rental Regulations, 1975 (for short ' the Regulations') without resorting to the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 in the nature of fixing fair rent and consequently direct the respondents to restrain them from in any way giving effect to the impugned action under the above said three impugned proceedings and to allow the petitioners to continue as tenants on paying the enhanced rent from September,2011 without prejudice to their right to question the validity, legality and propriety of such enhancement.

(2.) The 3rd petitioner filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition stating that all the petitioners are filing the writ petition as a joint application for a common relief and under common cause of action as the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioners from the premises under their occupation as tenants on the ground that enhanced rents have not been paid. The shops under the occupation of the petitioners have been illegally and arbitrarily in a discriminatory manner are locked and they are prevented from availing the premises for the purpose of running their respective businesses. They have right to be in occupation of the tenanted premises which are owned by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'APHB'). The shops in question are situated in Bagh Lingampally and they are 51 in number. The petitioners have cleared the whole of the alleged arrears till 31st August, 2011. Except one of the petitioners, none of the petitioners herein has been in arrears of the rent. All this is adopted by the respondent authorities as a matter of device to see that all the occupants are sent out of the premises on the ground of non-compliance of the demanded rent by the respondents and on the basis of non payment of such amount basing on the enhancement order locked the entire premises in the guise of the common judgment issued by this Court. The petitioners 1 to 10 are the original allottees of shop Nos. 42,43,36,16,17,50,51,20,32,27,25 and 6 respectively which are 12 in number and they have been continuing to be in occupation being allotted and delivery of premises to each of them with reference to the specified number of each shops allotted to each of them. Whereas petitioners 11 to 32 have been paying the rent fixed by the authorities from time to time in accordance with rules. They are doing their businesses in the shops allotted to the original allottees under whose authorization and authority they are running the shops. There has been no transfer of shops without permission of the authorities. The relationship of APHB authorities and the present petitioners is that of landlord and tenant. In case of allotment of 51 shops available for APHB in Bagh Lingampally, initially allotment procedure was followed on receipt of application. The first allotment took place in the year 1982. Similarly during the subsequent years also, till 1990s, they have been allotted to various allottees in pursuance of public auction held.

(3.) The other writ petitions are filed by the petitioners therein seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing them from carrying on business in their respective shops.