HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7367 of 2010 1st April 2010 Between: Ashraf Ali and others … PETITIONER(S) and Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal District. … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7367 of 2010 ORDER: Questioning the notification dated 20.03.2010 inviting tenders for allotment of shops situated in the Municipal Shopping Complex, near Head Post Office, Warangal, without considering the representations submitted by the petitioners not to evict them, this Writ Petition is filed. The petitioners would submit that they had been allotted shops in the Municipal Shopping Complex, near Head Post Office, Warangal, in the year 1980; a lease deed was executed initially for a period of three years; and the said lease was being extended from time to time. The lease period has already expired in the case of some of the petitioners on 31.03.2010, and is due to expire in the case of some of the other petitioners on 30.04.2010. The auction notice, under challenge in this Writ Petition, informs the general public that shops in the Municipal Shopping Complex would be let out for a period of three years on monthly rent basis; and an open auction would be conducted for lease of the shops on 07.04.2010 at the Planetarium of the Municipal Corporation, Warangal. Details of the terms and conditions of the auction, the estimated rent, the earnest money deposit, etc., were furnished in the said notice. The petitioners were informed by the eviction notice issued earlier that they should vacate the shops immediately after expiry of the lease period duly paying the rents due. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. Sri M. Yeshwanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, since the petitioners are continuing in occupation of the shops ever since 1980, and their lease is being regularly renewed for the past three decades, the action of the respondents in now seeking to evict them, even though they are ready and willing to enhance the rent payable by 331/3%, is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel would submit that, since they have submitted representations to the Warangal Muncipal Corporation, they should not be disturbed atleast till their representations are disposed of. No statutory provision or Rule which necessitates continuance of lease, on enhancement by 331/3% of the earlier lease rent, has been brought to the notice of this Court. Section 534(c) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as extended to the Warangal Municipal Corporation, enables the Commissioner to put up to public auction or, with the approval of the Standing Committee, dispose of by private sale the privilege of occupying or using any stall, shop, standing, shed or pen, in a municipal market or slaughter-house on such terms and condition as he shall think fit to impose. The auction proposed to be held on 07.04.2010 is to let out shops in the municipal shopping complex and, since Section 534(c) of the Act requires that the shops be allotted on public auction being held for such allotment, the action of the respondents in inviting the general public to participate in the auction is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It is not as if the petitioners are being denied the opportunity of participating in the public auction. While the estimated rent shown in the impugned auction notice is only an estimate, it is not as if the Corporation would not receive a rent higher than what they have estimated. In any event, if the petitioners participate in the auction and quote the highest, above the other bidders, for the shops in question, they would be entitled for being allotted the shops. Clause (2)(viii) of the lease agreement, a copy of which is enclosed along with the Writ Petition, requires the lessee to yield up the demised with all fixtures and additions thereto at the determination of the tenancy in good and tenantable repair and condition in accordance with the covenants contained in the lease deed. It is not as if the lease has been terminated even prior to its expiry. The petitioners are being called upon to vacate the premises only because the lease period has expired. Since the Corporation has acted in accordance with Section 534(c) of the Act in conducting an auction, I see no reason to direct the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners seeking extension of lease without resorting to the public auction. The Writ Petition fails as it is devoid of merits. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so choose, to participate in the public auction proposed to be held on 07.04.2010, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 1st April 2010 Note: Office to issue operative portion by wire at parties costs by 06.04.2010. B/o CVRK