Vinnakota Damodar Rao vs. The Commissioner And Director Municipal Administration

Held

The Court observed that the lease period of the petitioner had expired on March 31, 2021. It held that the dispute concerning the payment of rents due to the 3rd respondent was a matter of fact that needed to be determined by a proper forum, and the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could not delve into these factual disputes. The Court noted that Section 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act was the appropriate provision for resolving such disputes and determining the petitioner's eviction. However, the petitioner claimed he did not receive notice prior to a notice dated September 14, 2022, demanding a substantial amount with interest and GST. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to treat the notice dated September 14, 2022, as a show-cause notice. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file objections, and the 3rd respondent was directed to consider these objections, provide a hearing, and pass orders within three weeks of receiving the objections. The petitioner was protected from eviction until this process was completed. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner was the successful bidder in an auction held on March 23, 2018, for leasehold rights of a shop belonging to the 3rd respondent. The shop was allotted to him from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that respondents 2 and 3 sealed his shop on October 18, 2022, via a final notice dated October 17, 2022, without prior opportunity. The petitioner claimed this action was arbitrary, highhanded, violated constitutional rights, and caused loss of livelihood. The 3rd respondent stated the petitioner was irregular in rent payments, had arrears of Rs. 5,13,764/- plus GST and interest, and despite notices and a partial payment of Rs. 4,84,438/-, the dues remained uncleared, leading to the sealing under Section 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner claimed he was unable to participate in auction proceedings due to cataract surgery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sealing of the petitioner's shop by respondents 2 and 3 without providing a prior opportunity to be heard was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights, specifically Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the dispute regarding the payment of rents and the subsequent sealing of the shop can be adjudicated by the High Court in a writ petition, or if it requires determination in a proper forum. Petitioner's arguments: The sealing of the shop was arbitrary and highhanded, violating fundamental rights and causing loss of livelihood. No adequate prior opportunity was given before the final notice and sealing. Revenue/State's arguments: The petitioner was irregular in rent payments, had significant arrears, and despite notices, failed to clear the dues. The sealing was conducted in accordance with Section 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act after due process, including issuing notices and passing a resolution for auction.