B.ANIL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No. 25508 of 2018 This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Katta Sravya submits that when the petitioner is searching for suitable premises through intermediaries, the 5th respondent approached and offered him to lease out major portion of the 5th floor at Diamond Towers to the extent of 2700 square feet. Upon being impressed with the location and on the possibility of running / providing educational and consulting services, they have put-forth a requirement that the lease shall tentatively commence from 15/12/2014 and the insured premises being provided is fully functional and fit for use for business purpose. Thereupon the petitioner and the 5th respondent negotiated and took on lease the said premises under a registered lease agreement on 28/11/2014 with the mutual terms referred thereto. Thereafter, the 5th respondent collected Rs.3.00 lacs as deposit without interest by falsely misleading the petitioner regarding the true nature of the status of the said leased premises. Later, the 5th respondent failed to provide and hand over the premises as per the commitment. The petitioner incurred several lakhs towards improvements, infrastructure, equipment, furniture and got it ready and thus had successfully commenced the educational services. Learned counsel submits that The 5th respondent used to visit the service centre to oversee the improvements being done with the petitioner's money and having observed the successful running of the service centre, had cast an evil eye to join in the study centre and solicited to admit him as a partner in the centre but the said proposal was not accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the 5th respondent started pressurising the petitioner to hand over the premises with all infrastructure. The 5th respondent has committed several offences and basing on a complaint, Crime Nos. 380 of 2015, 834 of 2015, 602 of 2015 and 734 of 2015 were registered and as a counter blast to that, the 5th respondent filed O.S.No. 1035 of 2015 and O.S.No. 907 of 2016 for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 550 of 2016 for injunction and obtained an ad interim injunction order on 31/5/2016. The 5th respondent intentionally did not pay heed to the Court order by indulging in acts and denied the petitioner the right to enjoy the premises, by preventing the ingress and egress, removal of access to bathrooms, disconnection of lift / elevator services, disruption of water and parking facilities and allowing wild and undomesticated animals onto the premises. The 5th respondent also started running an illegal hookah bar above the said premises which is meant for educational services and he has gone to the extent of disconnecting the electricity and other permanent utilities required for the premises. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 240 of 2016 in O.S.No. 550 of 2016 for disobedience of the orders of the Court. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondent municipal corporation, then he has come to know that the 5th respondent is playing fraud upon the Courts as well as GHMC and in the process, committed numerous transgressions of law especially offences under IPC relating to forgery, false affidavits. When the sanctioned plan was compared with certified copies obtained from GHMC, it is apparent to the naked eye that the 5th floor was added as if sanction was accorded to construct the 5th floor also. He submits that as per the available court documents, the 5th respondent not only leased out a major portion of the 5th floor to the petitioner but also entered into lease agreements concerning the 5th floor with others and the petitioner has approached the authority to take action against the said unauthorised construction. It is submitted that as a direct and proximate result of the inaction of Respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner's fundamental rights have been infringed.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. Learned counsel Sri Meherchand Noori submits that the petitioner has come up before this Court only to harass the 5th respondent and it is a frivolous and vexatious litigation. He submits that the petitioner has entered into lease agreement with the 5th respondent. He submits that the 5th respondent is the absolute owner and landlord of the premises "Diamond Tower" and the present lis is concerned with the 5th floor of the said building. The lease commenced on 15/12/2014 on a monthly rent of Rs.55,000.00. As per Clause (8) of the lease deed dtd. 28/11/2014, if the lessee fails to pay rents for three consecutive months, the owner is at liberty to terminate the lease agreement by giving ten days notice in writing to the lessee to pay the rent. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed default of rents from 15/12/2014 to 15/12/2015 for a period of 12 months which amounts to Rs.6,50,000.00. Though several requests have been made, the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Then a legal notice was got issued on 31/8/2015 to the petitioner demanding him to pay the arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Notice was received "unclaimed" as the petitioner managed to return the same. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is enjoying the premises without paying any rent from the date of inception of tenancy, as such, the 5th respondent filed O.S.No. 1035 of 2015. He submits that the petitioner proposed a project of franchise of M/s Eten Coaching and the petitioner induced the 5th respondent by false assurance of getting huge returns and profits over the same. Believing the same, the 5th respondent paid Rs.31,25,800.00 to the petitioner and the petitioner has already got franchise in his name. All that money which was paid by the 5th respondent was diverted to the said franchise offices at SR Nagar and RTC X Road. Learned counsel submits that the 5th respondent has filed complaint against the petitioner herein. He submits that the petitioner being a 3rd party to the premises, has no right to question the nature of construction or he cannot have a grievance with regard to the sanctioned plan. Being a lessee / tenant, his concern is only with regard to the lease agreement entered into between the parties. The lease was terminated and he is squatting over the property illegally with the help of interim orders obtained form the Court by making false representations. He submits that as far as construction of 5th floor is concerned, the 5th respondent has made an Application on 10/10/2012 seeking permission for construction of 5th floor. Once such an Application is made under Sec. 428 of the Act, the Commissioner is bound to either convey his approval or disapproval within thirty days, but no such order was passed by the respondents. Under the deemed permission, the petitioner has constructed the 5th floor and completed the same. It is submitted that even if the same is constructed without obtaining plan, the case of the 5th respondent will fall within the four corners of Sec. 455-AA of the Act. He submits that the 5th respondent has made an Application seeking regularisation on 31/1/2016 duly paying an amount of Rs.10,000.00 by way of banker's cheque dtd. 22/12/2016. He submits that in the light of the orders passed in public interest litigation, the said G.O. was suspended and the petitioner is waiting for finalisation of the said proceedings. It is submitted that in Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 2841, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a monetary penalty against an advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious petition and the same was dismissed labelling it as publicity interest litigation and costs of Rs.10,000.00 were imposed. Learned counsel also relied on the judgments in Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh AIR 1984 SC 309, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 and submitted that the petitioner could not make out any case and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.