IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1341 OF 2014 DATED: 29-10-2014 Between:
Nimmakanti Rama Lingaiah … Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1341 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
The appeal is taken up for hearing.
The appellant before us was the lessee in respect of Shop No.2 in the shopping complex located in the premises of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa, Kadapa District. After he was declared successful bidder, he entered into a lease agreement and made payment in terms thereof. After expiry of the lease period, when the time came for the authorities concerned to lease out further, they decided to hold an auction. The writ petitioner/appellant however challenged the action contending that the authorities concerned were supposed to renew such lease automatically in terms of the lease agreement and no auction could be held.
The learned Trial Judge admitted the writ petition and heard the matter on affidavit. On facts, the learned Trial Judge found on reading the relevant terms that renewal of lease as claimed by the appellant was not automatic and the same was conditional. It was also found that the writ petitioner-appellant had committed breach of the terms of the lease agreement by which he rendered himself disqualified. Hence, the learned Trial Judge found no merit in the writ petition. The learned Judge not only dismissed the writ petition, but directed also, the petitioner to vacate the shop and hand over vacant possession to the second respondent enabling him to take effective and complete steps after holding auction in accordance with law.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the view that there are materials which constitute a factual dispute and according to us, the writ petition should not have been decided without receiving further evidence. We fail to understand why the writ petition was entertained as it manifestly involves contractual rights and obligations between the parties. It is not a case of resolution of disputes at the threshold of the contract. The agreement was concluded and alleged breach thereof can only be decided by the Civil Court under appropriate laws. It is absolutely a private nature of agreement and it does not have any statutory character and nor does it emanate from any statutory provision. Under these circumstances, remedy cannot be sought for by the writ petition.
We therefore set aside the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge and the writ petition shall stand dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner/appellant to approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29-10-2014 Svv