IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No. 30686 of 2014 Dt.08.04.2026 Between:

M/s Dr. Car Pvt. Ltd.

…. Petitioner and State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents

O R D E R:

1. The instant writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Lr.31/BPPA/HUDA/ 2006, dt.07.08.2014, of the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and estopped by way of conduct apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company, namely M/s Dr. Car Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the business of sale and exhibition of cars, and pursuant to negotiations with the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement, dt.04.08.2006, in respect of all shops situated on the first floor of Souvenir Shopping Complex, NTR Gardens, Hyderabad, agreeing for a monthly license/lease amount of Rs. 95,061/-, and carrying on its business therein since the commencement of the lease.

3. Petitioner further contended that upon expiry of the lease period, no fresh lease deed was executed, however, the petitioner was permitted to continue in possession on the same terms and conditions. While so, the 2^nd respondent, by letter, dt.07.08.2014, intimated renewal of the license up to 31.07.2014 or until finalization of tender, whichever was earlier, however, by the said communication, the 2nd respondent had unilaterally enhanced the license fee retrospectively with effect from 01.10.2010 and demanded payment of Rs. 11,72,388/- towards differential license fee and Rs. 1,40,090/- towards service tax, directing the petitioner to remit the same on or before 15.08.2014.

4. Assailing the retrospective enhancement and consequential demand by the impugned proceeding, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

5. Though the matter is pending since 2014, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the same basing on the material available on record.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel representing Sri V. Narsaimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the expiry of the original lease deed, dt.04.08.2006, in respect of the first floor of the subject Shopping Complex, though the respondents are entitled to enhance the rent/lease by 10% over and above the agreed amount of lease, they having permitted the petitioner to continue in the said premises by receiving the admitted rents for several years, cannot impose such enhancement and demand the amount with retrospective effect from 01.10.2010. Further it is contended that they could only demand the enhanced rents from the date of demand giving prospective effect, by duly intimating the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has been regularly paying the admitted license fee with enhanced rent @ 5% over and above the existing licence fee, and thus, contended that the action of the 2^nd respondent in giving retrospective effect to the enhanced license fee is arbitrary, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside to the extent of giving retrospective effect to the enhancement of the license fee.

8. Per contra, Sri V. Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel appearing for Sri V. Narsaimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, contended that the lease in question had expired long back and that as per the terms of the existing lease agreement, the rent was liable to be increased by 10% upon expiry of the lease period, and accordingly, by the impugned proceeding, dt.07.08.2014, the lease was renewed from 01.10.2010 to 31.07.2014, or until the finalization of tenders called by the 2^nd respondent.

9. Learned Stand