Telangana High Court
Women Entrepreneurs Association For ... vs The State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.123 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Srinivas Gangishetty, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Kondaparthi Srinivas, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce Department, appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. M. Roopender, learned Government Pleader for Home, appears for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31574 of 2023.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant No.1 is a Women Entrepreneurs' Association for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development and appellant No.2 is its Director. The appellants admittedly had taken a premises belonging ::2::
to the Telangana State Textile Complex Cooperative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") measuring 9200 square feet on lease. The aforesaid lease was executed on 20.12.2011 and was in force for a period of three years i.e., up to 19.12.2014. However, notwithstanding the expiry of the period of lease, it appears that the appellants continued in premises of the occupation and paid rent. Thereupon, the appellants did not pay the arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.49,78,810/-. Therefore, notice dated 22.10.2022 was issued by the Society to the appellants.
5. It is the case of the appellants that they have been forcibly dispossessed by the office bearers of the Society from the premises in their occupation and their valuable belongings were forcibly taken away. The appellants thereupon lodged a complaint against the office bearers of the Society and thereafter filed a writ petition seeking the following relief:
"Hence, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or orders, direction or more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in dispossessing the Writ Petitioner by break open the locks of the rented premises and lifting the materials and machines and other movable assets including the statue of Durga Matha without issuing any notice and without ::3::
conducting the Panchnama and without following due process of law and initiating the criminal proceedings by filing a false criminal case i.e., FIR.No.212 of 2023 dated 26.10.2023 against the Writ Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and Violation of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of the natural justice and without following the due process of law and against the provisions of Rent Control Act and by causing the infringement of Human Rights and direct the Respondents to redeliver the possession of the rented premises and to return the stocks, materials, machines and other movable assets to the Petitioner and direct the Respondent No.6 and 7 to register the complaint filed by the Writ Petitioners against the Managing Director of Respondent No.3 and to quash the FIR filed against the Writ Petitioners and pass any order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 01.12.2023 inter alia held that since the dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement and the consequential action of interference with the possession of the appellants over the premises in question, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. Hence, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if disputed questions of fact arise for consideration in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet this Court has jurisdiction to ::4::
entertain the writ petition. He further submits that the constitutional right of the appellants under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been infracted.
8. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited 1 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Agni Aviation Consultants and Another vs. State of Telangana, represented by Secretary AH & RSAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others 2.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
10. Admittedly, the appellants are not the owners of the premises in question and they were inducted as tenants thereof. Therefore, the appellants have no proprietary right in respect of the premises which has been let out to them as tenants. Hence, the question of infraction of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India does not arise. It is pertinent to mention that admittedly the appellants are in arrears of rent and have not paid rent for the period from 01.01.2012 to 1 (2004) 3 SCC 553 2 2020 SCC online TS 1462 ::5::
30.09.2022 to a tune of Rs.49,78,810/-. The lease deed executed in favour of the appellants has already expired on account of efflux of time. However, without any written agreement, the appellants have continued in the premises without payment of rent. The conduct of the appellants in not making payment of rent to the Society, which is a public body, disentitles them to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, it is clarified that it will be open for the appellants to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law, if so advised.
12. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 20.02.2024 ES Note: Issue C.C. today.