Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has held that a tenant cannot legally sublease a property without the landlord’s consent and written permission, observing that such a sublease is invalid in law. The court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to examine a property owner’s complaint and take appropriate action within three months.
Justice EV Venugopal passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Tirumala Lakshmanacharyulu, who challenged the authorities’ failure to act on his representation dated February 27 regarding the operation of a police station in his building.
Petitioner’s arguments
According to the petitioner, he had leased his ground-plus-two-storey building, located in EC Nagar, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, to the Cherlapally Notified Municipal Industrial Area Services Society for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs 36,000. However, the society allegedly subleased the premises to the police for the establishment of a police station without obtaining his consent.
The petitioner contended that he had neither permitted the sublease nor authorised the premises to be used as a police station. He also alleged that rent and electricity bill arrears had accumulated and claimed he was unable to seek eviction because the premises were occupied by the police. Despite submitting a representation to the DGP, no action was taken, prompting him to approach the High Court.
The government informed the court that all pending rent dues had been cleared in March.
After hearing both sides, the court noted that the petitioner was the lawful owner of the property and that the lease agreement was valid only for 11 months, a period that had already expired.
HC says society’s decision contrary to law
The High Court observed that the society’s decision to sublease the property without the owner’s permission was contrary to the law. It further remarked that the Station House Officer (SHO), Cherlapally, had set up a police station in the premises without verifying the legal rights over the property, describing the occupation as illegal and unauthorised.
Directing the DGP to consider the petitioner’s representation, the court ordered the authorities to conduct an appropriate inquiry and take necessary action within three months. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
