AKBAR ALI Vs. A P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed assailing the Judgment of the learned single Judge in dismissing the batch of writ petitions by a Common Judgment. The facts of the case are that the A.P. Housing Board has constructed 22 shops in Mukkaramjahi Road, Hyderabad. A notification was published for holding auction for leasing out the occupancy rights on rent and the public auction was held on 12-7-1976. The highest bidders including the appellants deposited the amounts and leases were executed in their favour. The said leases expired on 11-7-1981. The appellants continued in possession on condition of payment of 50% of excess rent according to Regulation 17 of the A.P. Housing Board Shops Rental Regulations, 1975. Thus, they continued in possession for a further period of five years from 11-7-1981 to 11-7-1986. In the meanwhile, they filed the writ petitions challenging Regulations 6,11 and 17 of the Regulations framed under the act as ultravires and seeking refund of the excess rent collected by the housing Board. The appellants mainly contended in the Writ Petitions that under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the A. P. Rent Control Act), the landlord is prohibited, where fair rent has not been fixed, from receiving any amount in excess of one month rent by way of advance and Clause (b) thereof obligates that any sum paid in excess thereof is liable either to be refunded or to be adjusted. Further the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) only empowers the Board to regulate sale or lease of the buildings owned or possessed or came into existence pursuant to a scheme under the act and there is no express power to fix any rents or premium. As there is a prohibition under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Rent Control Act, the appellants need not pay the rent higher than what was fixed at the time of the original lease. it is thus contended by the appellants that Regulations 6,11 and 17 are ultra-vires the Act and therefore they are entitled for refund of the excess rent paid to the Board.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the Board that the provisions of the Act, the Regulations and Rules amply empower the Board to lease out the properties in public auction on rent offered by the bidders and further empower the Board to extend the lease for a further period of 5 years. It is further contended that the Act, Rules and Regulations are self-contained providing the machinery for leasing out the premises, fixation of rent, enhancement of rent, and for eviction of the unauthorised tenant or who violates the terms and conditions of lease and therefore the Rent Control Act will not apply when there is a Special Act governing the same. Therefore the Regulations 6,11 and 17 are not ultra-vires the Act but intra-vires the Act and rules and therefore they are not liable to be struck down.

(3.) The learned single Judge after elaborately considering the rival i contentions held that Regulations 6,11 and 17 are not ultra-vires and void and dismissed the Writ Petitions. Against the said common Judgment, the present Writ Appeals are filed.