A.V.V.Raju vs. The Principal Secretary

Facts

The petitioners, A.V.V. Raju and Smt. A. Bharathi, leased their premises to Respondent No. 3, the District Minorities Welfare Officer (DMWO), Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The lease was formalized through proceedings bearing No. A/65/DM WO/2019 dated 20-09-2019 and a Lease Deed dated 27-09-2019. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the payment of admitted lease rentals, including GST, for the period from 22.01.2021 to 31.09.2022, amounting to Rs. 1,51,15,800/-. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 3 failed to pay these admitted lease rentals despite the issuance of proceedings and execution of the lease deed, deeming this action arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by both parties. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 stated that rental amounts have been paid by cheque up to 31.01.2023, and there are no arrears. They also submitted that the undisputed amounts have been paid. In light of these submissions, the Court found no further orders to be required. Consequently, the writ petition was closed. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available under law to claim any other amounts due from the respondents. No order as to costs was made. The ratio of the decision is that if the respondents confirm payment of undisputed dues and no further arrears are acknowledged, the writ petition can be closed with liberty to pursue other remedies for any remaining claims.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 3 in not paying the admitted lease rentals, including GST, to the petitioners for the leased premises, despite the issuance of proceedings and execution of a Lease Deed, is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and administrative action). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the respondents' failure to pay the admitted lease rentals, as per the proceedings and lease deed, constitutes arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional action. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to make the payments. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that rental amounts have been paid by way of cheque to the petitioners up to 31.01.2023, and there are no arrears. They further stated that the particulars of payments made were filed along with a memo. The respondents also submitted that they paid the undisputed amounts.