NEW VASANTH VIHAR Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be registered firm which prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the proposed action of the first respondent in paying compensation to the second respondent pursuant to the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to an extent of 1941 Sq.yds. forming part of the premises bearing No.4-1-830/1, Vasanth Vihar, Abids in T.S.No.3, Block A, Ward No.50, as illegal and arbitrary. The prayer is sought to be justified in the facts and circumstances noticed hereunder and on the grounds which are urged at the Bar. The second respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') is the owner of the premises bearing No.4-1-830 by reason of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad between the second respondent and his brothers. Even before the premises fell to the share of the second respondent, the property was leased by one Sirajuddin Babu Khan, the elder brother of the second respondent to one P.Narasimha Charya. A deed was executed on 24-12-1953 evidencing the lease for a period of three years from 1-1-1954 to 31-12-1956. The premises was taken on lease for running a restaurant and lodge by name Vasanth Vihar on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. Narasimha Charya later formed a partnership by name New Vasanth Vihar. In 1965, K. Madhusudan Rao, who claims to be the present managing partner and sons of late Narasimha Charya re-constituted the firm. The new firm was paying rents regularly to the landlords. The petitioner claims that tenancy was governed and regulated by the provisions of Hyderabad Rent Control Order, 1353 F. which came into force on 23rd Thir 1353 F. Be it noted, the said Rent Control Order was repealed by Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction & Lease) Control Act, 1954, which was again repealed by A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter called 'the Rent Act'). The petitioner claims that it is a statutory tenant of the second respondent and his legal representatives and entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. In 1988, the Government acquired a part of the land out of the leased premises. An award dated 21-6-1988 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarding a sum of Rs.25,76,347.65p. Though he is a tenant, he staked a claim for a share in the compensation awarded by the LAO. The matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as O.P.No.24 of 1989 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By an order and decree dated 6-7-1998, the said Court held that the petitioner is entitled to 20% of the compensation awarded by the LAO. Against the said O.P., the petitioner as well as second respondent filed appeal before this Court being C.C.C.A.Nos.104 and 143 of 1998. By a judgment dated 23-1-2003, a Division Bench held that the petitioner is not entitled to any share in the compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed S.L.P.No.10750-10751 of 2003 before the Supreme Court. A part of the land of the leased premises in an extent of 503.80 Sq.mtrs. was again acquired by an award dated 15-7-1995 passed under the Land Acquisition Act by the first respondent herein awarding a sum of Rs.35,03,328/-. The petitioner again claimed a share in the compensation and the same was rejected by the LAO and the amount was paid to the second respondent. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was rejected. The petitioner firm filed W.P.No.5307 of 1996 challenging the order rejecting reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition was allowed on 6-6-1996 and the first respondent was directed to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the civil Court to deal with the issue of apportionment as also enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the mater was referred to the civil Court and registered as O.P.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. The said O.P. is still pending. An extent of 1941 Sq.yds. was again acquired by issuing a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-8-2002. The land acquisition proceedings are pending and an award is yet to be passed. The petitioner alleges that being a 'tenant' under the second respondent he is also entitled to receive the compensation from the first respondent. Apprehending that the first respondent might pass an award and also pay the amount of compensation to the second respondent the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction restraining the first respondent from making any payment to the second respondent pending adjudication of the question of apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.10750-10751 of 2003.

(2.) The matter was heard and orders were reserved on 26-7-2003. A mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner bringing to the notice of the Court about the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 14-7-2003 in S.L.P.No.10750-10751 of 2003. Therefore, the matter was reopened and the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 12-8-2003 at length. Be it also noted, the petitioner filed an application being WPMP.No.19398 of 2003 to amend the prayer to the effect that the action of the fourth respondent in paying compensation to the second respondent is violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the second respondent from making payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, submits that the Division Bench in its judgment dated 23-1-2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation only on the ground that petitioner firm is a tenant and, therefore, it is not entitled to any share in the compensation. He further submits that as per the decisions of this Court in A.Appala Reddy v. Spl.Tahsildar1, Big Mosque by Mutavalli, Guntur v. J.Yellamanda2 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Galib Bin Awaz v. Mohd.Abdul Khader3 and Rambai Manjanath Nayak v. Union of India4, a statutory tenant is entitled to a share in the compensation. As the petitioner has had been a statutory tenant under various Rent Acts, denying a share in the compenstion to the petitioner firm is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. After perusing all the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the provisions of the Rent Act and after giving anxious consideration to the issues raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. The petitioner has not demonstrated any right which inheres in it that can be enforced in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that a writ petition is a proper remedy for enforcing any right or for compelling a statutory authority to discharge statutory duties. If an authority is required, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Appa Rao5, wherein it was held: .................One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed.....................In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the appellant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition................

(3.) A tenant of a residential and/or non-residential building governed by the Rent Act is not entitled to claim any compensation when the land forming part of the leased premises and/or the building which is subject matter of the tenancy is acquired by the State for a public purpose. To appreciate this, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Rent Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act and Agricultural Tenancy Acts enforced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 'Landlord' is defined in Section 2 (vi) of the Rent Act as the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building if building were let to a tenant. The term 'tenant' as per Section 2(ix) means any person on whose account the rent is payable for a building and includes the spouse, or any son or daughter of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant's family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his occupation. However, a person placed in the occupation of the building by his tenant or a person with whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority, cannot be treated as a tenant. A tenant is conferred with certain rights and privileges under the Rent Act. Sections 4 to 7 deal with fair rent and increase of such rent by the landlord. Every tenant who makes payment on account of rent shall be entitled to obtain a receipt from the landlord. If for any reason the landlord refuses to accept the rent, it is open to the tenant to seek from the landlord particulars of the rent and deposit the amount in the bank. Section 10 deals with eviction of tenants. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 lays down that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10, 12 and 13. A tenant can be evicted mainly on the grounds that he has committed default; that the landlord bona fide requires the building for his self occupation; that the tenant sub-let the building without the consent of the landlord; and/or on the ground that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial was not bona fide. The landlord can also seek eviction of the tenant for making alterations, additions, or re-construction subject to condition that on such re-construction or alterations, the tenant shall be re-inducted in such building as a tenant. Section 14 stipulates that no landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. In case, facilities are withdrawn, a tenant is given a right to approach the Rent Controller complaining contravention of the provision. The Rent Act also provides for an appeal against the orders of the Rent Controller and also revision of an order passed by the appellate authority. Section 26 deals with the power of the Government to exempt any building or class of building from all or any of the provisions of the Rent Act. Section 32 (b) contemplates that the provisions of the Rent Act do not apply to any building owned by the Government and to any building constructed on or after 26-8-1957.