GUSIDI SANKAR RAO CHINAGADILI MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT Vs. COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) facts leading to the filing of this petition are: The second respondent granted a lease for Canteen No. 1 at the foot of the Simhachalam Hills with effect from 31/08/1980 at Rs. 950.00 per month. The lease was for three years. From 1983 the lease amount was enhanced by 10% for 1983-86, which was again enhanced by 15% from 1986-89 and from 1989-92 it was enhanced by 20%. For 1992-95 the lease amount was enhanced by 30%. The petitioner submits that he was paying a rent of Rs. 4,281.00 per month and he had not violated any term or condition of the lease. He expected that, as lease was being extended continuously from 1980 it will be extended for another term and the petitioner had offered the increase of lease amount to 35% after 31st of August, 1995. The second respondent issued a notice on 18th June, 1995 to the petitioner whereby he was informed that the lease was expiring on 31/08/1995 and he should vacate the premises. The petitioner submits that this notice was given in routine and he had received such notices earlier also when the lease was about to expire. In his reply to the notice the petitioner requested for extension of lease and offered enhanced lease amount. He submits that, in view of his past conduct and the approach of the respondents he had legitimate expectation of renewal of lease. The petitioner further states that there are 104 shops both on the uphill and the down hill of Simhachalam Devasthanam and all of them are under the occupation of the lessees. Since 1980 the second respondent is extending the leases periodically for all those shops including the shop held by the petitioner by increasing the rents from term to term.

(2.) The second respondent filed a Caveat in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam wherein it was stated that in case Writ Petitioner approaches the Court, before passing any order of injunction the second respondent should be heard. On receiving the copy of the Caveat the petitioner came to know that the shop was being put to auction. The petitioner further states that he and his three brothers are all dependent on the business and there is no other business for the family and the business of the Canteen was only the source of income to the family of the petitioner. He further states that he had invested all his savings on the infrastructure of the canteen.

(3.) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19502/95 in the Court challenging the legality and propriety of the proposed auction of the Canteen. This Writ Petition was entertained by Court and the Court passed the following Order : "The proposed auction may be go on and the petitioner also may be permitted to participate in the said auction. However, it (the auction) shall not be finalised pending further orders. Meanwhile, the petitioner also shall not be dispossessed from the canteen. The respondents may also consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the lease on his offer to increase the rent by 35%."But, later on the Writ Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. He submits that the Writ had been withdrawn by him as the respondents 1 and 2 had told him that if he withdrew the Writ Petition unconditionally the lease shall be extended to him. The Court passed the following order on 20/08/1996 when the Writ Petition was withdrawn: "Simhachalam Devasthanam intended to put to auction the canteen of the temple, and the proposed auction is being questioned by the petitioner on various grounds contending that he has been running the canteen for many years and as a matter of right he could have been given the canteen on lease basis, The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view, of the proposed auction, the petitioner do not wish to seek any further direction form this Court. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Endowments. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim direction granted by this Court on 1-9-1995 shall stand vacated."The petitioner states that at the meeting of the Founder Trustee of the 2nd respondent recommendations were made to lease out the canteen to the petitioner to avoid hardship to him and it was also recommended that a rent of Rs. 6,422.00 per month be charged to the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with the auction with mala fide intentions to deprive him and his family members of the business.