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
(2004) 3 SCC 553
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.
