Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 472
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
P. Anjamma & Others
Versus
Sri Nirool Kumar Prasad, Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad & Others
C.C.No.1309 of 2011
Decided On : 27-04-2012
For the Petitioners:M.R.K. Chowdary for P.V. Mahesh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S.R. Ashok for D. Ranganath Kumar, Advocates.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board –Arrear of Rent – Petitioners were occupants of shop rooms belonging to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board They have filed W.P. feeling aggrieved by provisional notice/order and final order passed by the APHB officials and for a consequential direction to continue them as tenants on payment of enhanced rent without prejudice to their right to question the enhanced rent. pleaded in their affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that petitioner Nos.1 to 10 are the original allottees of the shops in their occupation as mentioned in their affidavit and petitioner Nos.11 to 32 have been paying the rent fixed by the authorities from time to time and that even though there is no transfer of shops in their favour, they are paying rents under authorization for a number of years and that as the APHB officials have been receiving rents from these petitioners, there is landlord and tenants relationship between the APHB and petitioner Nos.11 to 32. That except one of the petitioners, all others have cleared the entire arrears of the enhanced rent and APHB officials enhanced the rent unreasonably and arbitrarily with a view to ensure that the tenants cannot afford to pay such rent and to eventually evict them from the premises in their occupation. It was further averred that the respondents have locked the shop rooms purporting to rely upon a Judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. – Held, Court while seeing force in the plea of learned Senior Counsel that interim order was secured by not placing the material facts before this Court, directed the Contempt Case to be heard along with the vacate-stay application on facts of this case, non-opening of the locks and not redelivering possession to tenants by the respondents cannot be termed as intentional or willful. While the outcome of the main case was not really relevant for adjudicating Contempt Case, as held by Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla same however constitutes a relevant fact while taking a final Contempt Case – In counter-affidavit, the respondents categorically averred that this Court while declining to grant relief of redelivery of possession against the eviction order, upheld notice-cum-provisional order dated and confirmed order dated Nil-12-2010 and that petitioners were also declared as unauthorized occupants and are liable to pay damages fixed by following the procedure under Rule 32 of the Rules. These averments are not denied by the petitioners stand initially taken by respondents that petitioners are not entitled to redelivery of possession, stood vindicated by the Judgment in the Writ Petition – Petition is accordingly dismissed.
This Contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 16-9-2011 in W.P.N.25953/2011.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the case are stated hereunder:
The petitioners were occupants of shop rooms belonging to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short “the APHB”). They have filed W.P.No.25953/2011 feeling aggrieved by provisional notice/order dated 3-1-2011, order dated 17-5-2011 and final order dated 2-9-2011 passed by the APHB officials and for a consequential direction to continue them as tenants on payment of enhanced rent from September 2011 without prejudice to their right to question the enhanced rent. They have pleaded in their affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that petitioner Nos.1 to 10 are the original allottees of the shops in their occupation as mentioned in their affidavit and petitioner Nos.11 to 32 have been paying the rent fixed by the authorities from time to time and that even though there is no transfer of shops in their favour, they are paying rents under authorization for a number of years and that as the APHB officials have been receiving rents from these petitioners, there is landlord and tenants relationship between the APHB and petitioner Nos.11 to 32. That except one of the petitioners, all others have cleared the entire arrears of the enhanced rent till 31-8-2011 and that it is only after August 2011, that the APHB officials enhanced the rent unreasonably and arbitrarily with a view to ensure that the tenants cannot afford to pay such rent and to eventually evict them from the premises in their occupation. It was further averred that the respondents have locked the shop rooms purporting to rely upon a Judgment of the learned Judge of this Court.
The petitioners further averred that the original allottees authorized the tenants to pay the rent and carry on business; that on 8-11-2010 a notice was given enhancing the rent and informing the petitioners that they can make representations against the proposed enhancement and that the enhanced rents were paid. It was also averred that respondent No.2 has again issued letter dated 3-1-2011 proposing to increase the rent from Rs.765/-to Rs.1148/-with effect from 1-4-2011 calling upon the petitioners to give their willingness to pay the enhanced rent and enter into fresh rental deeds failing which they have to vacate and handover the shops within one month. It was further averred that for non-acceptance of the proposal for enhancement of rent, eviction orders were passed on 17-5-2011. The petitioners further pleaded that by notice dated 2-9-2011, huge amount of arrears were demanded and that till 31-8-2011 there were no arrears. The petitioners gave details of the arrears of rents they have paid upto August 2011. It was further pleaded that respondent No.4 arbitrarily seized the shops and locked all the premises on 20-8-2011 and that on 22-8-2011, the petitioners requested respondent No.4 to open the locks and handover the premises to them, but the said request was not accepted. The petitioners have seriously disputed their liability to pay huge amounts towards the purported arrears. The petitioners also referred to filing of W.P.No.1732/2011 by some other tenants who are 12 in number the fact of and disposal of the said Writ Petition by this Court with the direction to the petitioners therein to pay the arrears failing which it shall be open to the respondents to evict them without initiating further proceedings.
W.P.No.25953/2011 came up for admission and consideration of interlocutory application on 16-9-2011. On that day, Sri M. Brahma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel who has taken notice for the APHB and its officials has sought for time for filing counter affidavit. This Court, on the basis of the averments contained in the petitioners’ affidavit passed the following order:
“The shops, in occupation of the petitioners as lessees, are allegedly, locked at the instance of respondent No.4
