HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.853 OF 2014 Date:04.06.2014 Between:
G. Aparna .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.853 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The petitioner claims to be the landlady of premises bearing No.1-10-88, Road No.8, Dwarakapuram Colony, Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. It appears that with effect from 12.06.2011, the said building was taken on rent for locating Government B.C. Hostel for Boys and the Hostel Warden, B.C. Welfare Department, however, appears to have taken a decision to vacate the said building and to occupy an alternative building. According to him, the boarders are facing inconvenience, as the required facilities are not provided to the said building. Accordingly, notice, dated 20.12.2013, was given by the Office of the District Collector to the petitioner - landlady intimating that the Government decided to shift the building to an alternative building within a month. Questioning the said vacation notice, the present writ petition is filed.
By order dated 17.01.2014, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay for four weeks in view of the fact that the petitioner - landlady had incurred huge amount for repairs of the building and she also constructed third floor as requested by the Deputy Director, B.C. Welfare Department. However, it appears that the respondents vacated the building on 18.01.2014 and the building is admittedly in possession of the petitioner - landlady.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vacation of the building is contrary to the directions of this Court referred to above and that neither possession was handed over to the petitioner by giving keys nor the respondents paid arrears due to her towards electricity, water consumption etc. She also contends that on request of the respondents, third floor was constructed and that she has already incurred considerable expenditure to make the building appropriate for use by the respondents.
Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, submits that the water supply to the building was getting mixed with drainage water, which is not good to the health of the boarders. He also submits that considering the request of the boarders, vacation notice was issued and the hostel is located in an alternative place. The allegation in the counter, to the extent of the interim order, is that before the said order is communicated to the respondents, the building was vacated. Learned Government Pleader also states that there is no statutory right to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition and the same is misconceived.
Admittedly, there is no deed of lease. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any lease for a fixed term and one has to presume that it is month to month tenancy. It is also agreed that notice of vacation was given by respondent No.1 on 20.12.2013 indicating that they may vacate the premises within a month and accordingly, on 18.01.2014 they had vacated the premises. The dispute between the petitioner – landlady and the respondent – tenant being purely contractual, I am unable to accept contention of petitioner that the present writ petition is maintainable. As the dispute is purely contractual in nature between landlord and tenant, the petitioner cannot seek the relief as sought for in the present writ petition. It is apparent that the petitioner is seeking specific performance of lease and seeks to compel the lessee to continue the lease against his wish by resorting to remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The claim for compelling the lessee to continue to occupy the leased premises is certainly not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if at all the facts and circumstances support such a claim, the aggrieved party has to approach a competent civil Court. Further, if there is any claim by the petitioner – landlady with respect to arrears due to her towards electricity or water consumption or any other damages, appropriate forum for ventilating the said grievance is the competent civil Court. The process of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot therefore be invoked in a case of this nature.
The writ petition is wholly misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 04.06.2014
KH