Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
M/s Alakram International Trading Company Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1907 of 2020
Decided On : 21-10-2021
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Terminate the lease - Cancel recognition - Educational Institution - Cancellation of lease to notice - In lease was cancelled respondent is not legally entitled to run school in premises of petitioner - Petitioner brought factum of cancellation of the lease to notice of respondent and requested him to derecognize respondent school and cancel its permission - To knowledge of petitioner respondent issued show-cause notice respondent and called for explanation but there was no response from respondent - Thereafter petitioner issued another notice respondent and also to Assistant Director Office of D.E.O. and also visited office of respondent a number of times - At last respondent vide his letter declined to interfere in matter and derecognize respondent school - Respondent being concerned authority he has to act as per rules and withdraw recognition accorded to 3rd respondent - However he abrogated his powers and allowed respondent to perpetuate illegality.
Finding of the court:
This is position under private law - But where grant of lease is governed by a statute or statutory regulations and if such statute expressly reserves power of cancellation or revocation to lessor it will be permissible for an authority as lessor to cancel a duly executed and registered lease deed even if possession has been delivered on specific grounds of cancellation provided in statute - Authority is an authority constituted for development of an industrial and urban township provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Section 7 empowers Authority to sell lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to it in industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose on such terms and conditions and subject to any rules that may be made.
Result : Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
1. Petitioner implores for writ of mandamus declaring the letter dated 03.10.2019 sent by the 2nd respondent/District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam expressing his disinclination to intervene in the dispute between the writ petitioner/lessor and respondent Nos. 3 and 4/lessee and to derecognize Ravindra Bharathi School, Visakhapatnam run by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and its Rules and for consequential direction to 2nd respondent to cancel permission granted to the said School.
2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:
After entering into the lease deed, the 3rd respondent submitted application to 2nd respondent to commence the School and the 2nd respondent granted permission vide L. Dis No. 5429/A1/2017, dated 09.11.2017. The respondent No. 3 has been running the school.
While so, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stopped paying rents to petitioner without any plausible reason from February, 2019 and thus they violated the terms of the lease. The petitioner got issued legal notice dated 17.02.2019 to the 3rd respondent and terminated the lease from 31.03.2019 and directed the lessee to vacate the premises as the terms of lease facilitate such termination. Therefore, the lease deed was cancelled.
At the time of entering into the lease, a tripartite agreement was entered into by the petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and LIC (HFL) Corporation whereunder the 3rd respondent has to deposit the monthly rents payable to the petitioner to the credit of LIC (HFL). Since the 3rd respondent committed default, the LIC (HFL) Corporation initiated proceedings U/s 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, since lease was cancelled, the 3rd respondent is not legally entitled to run the school in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner brought the factum of the cancellation of the lease to the notice of the 2nd respondent and requested him to derecognize the 3rd respondent school and cancel its permission. To the knowledge of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 16.07.2019 to 3rd respondent and called for the explanation but there was no response from the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the petitioner issued another notice dated 12.09.2019 to 2nd respondent and also to Assistant Director, Office of D.E.O. Visakhapatnam and also visited the office of 2nd respondent a number of times. At last, the 2nd respondent vide his letter 03.10.2019 declined to interfere in the matter and derecognize the 3rd respondent school. The 2nd respondent being the concerned authority, he has to act as per rules and withdraw recognition accorded to 3rd respondent. However, he abrogated his powers and allowed the 3rd respondent to perpetuate the illegality. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending thus:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
