Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
Parkala Ramesh – Petitioner
Versus
The District Cooperative Officer and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 30777, 30799, 30841, 30851, 36413 of 2022, Contempt Case Nos. 1434, 1436, 1439 of 2022
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Lakshmi Kanth.
Point of Law: There is no willful and deliberate violation of orders passed by this Court on part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for subjecting them to rigmarole of contempt proceedings under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 - Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Cooperative Society - Lease/Rental Agreements - Lease period - Petitioners that respondent No. 2/District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited is registered under provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules made thereunder and respondent No. 1/District Cooperative Officer is governing authority of all the affairs of respondent No. 2- It is further case of petitioners that respondent No. 2/Society has constructed a commercial complex, namely “DCMS Complex” in Huzurabad Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District, and offered shops/mulgies constructed insaid complex for general public on leasehold basis - All petitioners herein have entered into Lease/Rental Agreements for respective shops/mulgies on a mutually agreed monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- or Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively - As per terms and conditions mentioned in Lease/Rental Agreements, lease period is from 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2022 i.e. for a period of two years - Whether the petitioners have been evicted forcibly by adopting coercive methods or they have voluntarily surrendered possession is a disputed question of fact which cannot be safely decided in favour of either of parties in writ jurisdiction - It is settled principle that leases are governed strictly in accordance with the conditions of lease and as such the lease made by respondent No. 2 is to take effect according to their tenor.
Findings of the Court:
Admittedly, the petitioners have filed writ petitions after expiry of lease - There is no evidence placed on record to show that they are in possession of the subject shops/mulgies as on the date of institution of the writ petitions - It is settled principle of law that always a disputed question of fact requires to be decided after considering elaborate evidence -Therefore, in absence of evidence, it cannot be said that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have adopted the procedure to circumvent orders of this Court - Further respondent No. 3 in all writ petitions filed respective implead petitions stating that they have entered into lease agreements with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a lease period - Petitioners filed the writ petitions after lease being entered by the impleaded respondents - According to them, petitioners have vacated premises and handed over to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who in turn handed over same to them - According to statement made in affidavits filed in support of the implead petitions, even before the institution of writ petitions by petitioners, implead respondents have entered into lease agreements and they were also put in possession.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
1. All these writ petitions and contempt cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ petition Nos. 30777, 30799, 30841, 30851 and 36413 of 2022 have been filed by the respective writ petitioners praying this Hon’ble Court to declare the high-handed action of respondent No. 2 in the writ petitions in insisting to vacate the subject shops/mulgies of DCMS Complex, Huzurabad without issuing any notice to them as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petitions to continue them as tenants of the respective subject shops/mulgies extending the period of lease.
3. This Court, vide interim orders dated 28.07.2022 in W.P. Nos. 30777, 30799, 30841 and 30851 of 2022 and dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 36413 of 2022, directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petitions not to take any coercive steps against the writ petitioners. Seeking to vacate the said interim orders, vacate stay petitions have been filed by the respondents in the respective writ petitions and pending adjudication of the said vacate stay petitions, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have invited applications from the prospective lessees for granting lease in respect of the subject shops/mulgies and the prospective lessees filed implead petitions and got themselves impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the respective writ petitions.
4. Alleging violation of the common interim order dated 28.07.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 30799, 30777 and 30841 of 2022, which has been subsequently extended by order dated 01.08.2022, Contempt Case Nos. 1434, 1436 and 1439 of 2022 have been filed.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2/the District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited is registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder and respondent No. 1/District Cooperative Officer is the governing authority of all the affairs of respondent No. 2. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2/Society has constructed a commercial complex, namely “DCMS Complex” in Huzurabad Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District, and offered the shops/mulgies constructed in the said complex for general public on leasehold basis. All the petitioners herein have entered into Lease/Rental Agreements on 01.07.2020 for respective shops/mulgies on a mutually agreed monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- or Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Lease/Rental Agreements, the lease period is from 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2022 i.e. for a period of two years.
6. Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners have not violated any terms and conditions of Lease/Rental Agreements and in fact they have paid advance rent also. He further submits that since there is no clause for further renewal of lease period in the Lease/Rental Agreements, taking advantage of the same, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to evict the petitioners without issuing any notice or following the procedure prescribed by law, as such the said action on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Learned counsel contends that respondent No. 2/Society is a creature of Statute and is totally governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, which is amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that since respondent No. 2/Society is discharging public duties, it falls under the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petitions as filed against the Society even for enforcement of civil rights are maintainable and entreaties this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed in
