HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16770 OF 2008 DATED 19th November, 2014.
BETWEEN M/s. Uni Ads Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its General Manager M.Narayana Raju ….Petitioner And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Secunderabad and ors …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16770 OF 2008.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
The petitioner entered into an agreement with the third respondent to raise a Unipole in premises D.No.6-1-508/A/8, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, which is adjacent to Khairatabad Flyover Bridge, on 30.07.2001 for a period of ten years at the rate of payment of rent of Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum with 10% increase after five years. Thereafter the petitioner applied for permission and license from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 2.8.2001 and the same was granted by collecting an amount of Rs.1,23,964/-. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had also collected an amount of Rs.1,93,256/- for regularization of the said structure. While so, respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice on 17.09.2002 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8.00 lakhs towards annual rent on the ground that the land on which Unipole was raised belongs to them. The petitioner preferred suit in O.S.No.6379 of 2001 seeking permanent injunction to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, first respondent herein, not to interfere with the hoarding erected by it in the schedule premises since it has entered into agreement with the third respondent, whereas as respondents 1 and 2 are demanding amount towards rent for the erection of the hoarding. The said suit was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2003 as fourth respondent by letter dated 18.11.2002 directed the petitioner to withdraw the said suit on the ground that it considered the case of the petitioner for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum. The petitioner addressed a letter on 23.05.2003 to consider the lease period for ten years, but the fourth respondent by letter dated 21.06.2003 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the lease period 2002-2004. Accordingly the petitioner paid the said amount and addressed a letter dated 2.7.2003 requesting to grant lease for ten years. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondents 1 and 2 and the Honourable Minister for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority on 11.07.2006 for fixation of rent. When the correspondence was going on, the fourth respondent issued letter dated 08.06.2008 cancelling the license and demanding an amount of Rs.40,57,500/- up to the period 30.06.2008. Questioning the said proceedings, the present Writ petition was filed.
This Court initially granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 08.06.2008 on 04.08.2008 subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.20.00 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order and the petitioner has complied with the said order. Thereafter, the said interim order was modified by order dated 14.07.2011 directing the petitioner to pay a further amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs towards arrears of rent, however, the petitioner could not comply the said order, as a result of which, interim suspension granted on 04.08.2008 stood vacated.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now not having license and is not using hoarding in the scheduled premises as of today. In view of the same, the issue relating to cancellation of license need not be adjudicated and therefore nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition. With regard to the fixation of rent for the period during which Unipole was used, there was lot of correspondence and ultimately it resulted in cancellation of license by proceedings dated 08.06.2008. It is to be seen, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the issue relating to fixation of rent. It is for respondents 1 and 2 to fix rent based on the prevailing rates and according to rules. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to respondents 1 and 2 for fixation of rent for the period during which he used the Unipole and the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. For this purpose, the petitioner is given three months’ time to submit representation to the respondents 1 and 2, who on receipt of the said representation, shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months thereafter. Till such time, the amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 04.08.2008 shall remain with respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner shall abide by their orders.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 19th November, 2014. Msnrx