IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12875 OF 2011 Between: Goturu Sudhakar. - - - Petitioner. AND The Municipality, Pulivendula – 516390, Kadapa District, Rep. by it’s Commissioner and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12875 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Mandamus seeking to declare the notice bearing No.Roc.262/A3/2010, dated 09-03-2011 issued by the ﬁrst Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition that the Petitioner was granted lease of shop room No.43 admeasuring 170 Sq. feet with R.C.C. roof in the ﬁrst ﬂoor of the building in Y.S. Jayamma Commercial Complex, old market area, in survey No.476 situated at Pulivendula town, Kadapa district under a lease deed dated 30-04-2010. The lease agreement was executed in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to an application submitted by him to the second Respondent and after passing a resolution in the Municipal Council, Pulivendula, the Respondents stipulated certain terms and conditions of the lease ﬁxing the rent of his shop room as Rs.1,300/- p.m. and tenure of the lease up to 31-03-2013. Subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, the Petitioner started business in his shop room and regularly paying the rents to the ﬁrst Respondent. While so, the impugned notice dated 09-03-2011 is issued by the ﬁrst Respondent purportedly canceling the lease and directing the Petitioner to vacate the tenanted shop within a period of two months. It is also found in the impugned notice that a resolution dated 05-02-2011, bearing No.249 is passed deciding to allot the leases to the old tenants by canceling the existing new lease which is illegal and unsustainable and the Respondents having entered into lease, which is reduced into writing, for a ﬁxed tenure i.e. up to 31-03-2013, the rights of the parties, inter-se, are covered under the lease and the ﬁrst Respondent cannot cancel the lease unilaterally unless the said lease is obtained by misrepresentation or any other reason and hence he ﬁled the present Writ Petition. 4. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled a detailed counter aﬃdavit denying the averments made in the petition and stated that the ﬁrst Respondent-Municipality has taken up construction of modern shopping complex in the place of existing old vegetable market area under Rajiv Nagara Bata and Pulivendula Area Development Agency (PADA) during the year 2007 and as such constructed 96 shop rooms therein by demolishing the existing old shop rooms and accordingly the Municipal Council vide its resolution in C.R. No.179, dated 30-10-2007 resolved to allot the newly constructed shop rooms at old vegetable market to the old lease holders who are doing their business in the same place. Further, the Municipal Council in its resolution in C.R. No.24, dated 30- 05-2009 after examining the entire issue, allotted shop rooms to the said 96 persons for a lease period of three years and accordingly shop room No.43 in the Y.S. Jayamma Commercial Complex was allotted to the Petitioner by way of agreement for a period of three years i.e. from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2013. Subsequently, certain allegations were leveled against the Respondents that some shop rooms were allotted to ineligible persons by the Municipal Council. In the light of the said allegations, the Municipal Council, after reviewing the entire issue, in its resolution in C.R. No.249, dated 05-02-2011 resolved to identify the old beneﬁciaries as per the earlier resolution in C.R. No.179, dated 30-10- 2007 and to cancel the lease of newly allotted shop rooms and to allot the shops afresh to the eligible persons only. The Petitioner who was allotted shop room No.43 in the new Commercial Complex was not an old lease holder of the old Municipal Complex or any other area within the limits of this Respondents and also was not covered under the earlier resolution in C.R. No.179, dated 30-10-2007 and fraudulently entered the shop room claiming to be the existing lease holder of the old market complex. Consequently, the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled vide its impugned notice dated 09-03-2011 granting two months time to vacate the shop and hand over the same to the Municipality and hence there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice dated 09-03-2011. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by virtue of the lease deed executed by the Petitioner and the Municipal Commissioner, he was inducted into possession on 30-04-2010 and that since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying the rents etc., and no amount is due by him to the ﬁrst Respondent-Municipal Corporation and that without there being any notice, the present impugned notice is issued directing the Petitioner to hand over the possession of shop room No.43 to the Municipality and hence it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that by virtue of the resolution dated 30-10-2007 the Municipal Council decided to allot the newly constructed rooms in question to the existing old lease holders after demolition and reconstruction of the shops, but without setting aside that resolution, another resolution was passed on 30-05-2009 for the purpose of allotment of shop to the Petitioner and thereafter the Respondents took a decision to cancel the resolution dated 30-05-2009 in allotting the shop to the Petitioner and to implement the resolution of the second Respondent dated 30-10-2007 and therefore the issuance of the impugned notice is not illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court. 7. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the lease deed, the Petitioner entered into the shop and has been paying rents regularly to the ﬁrst Respondent. It is also not in dispute that the lease deed is for a period of three years, which expires by 31-03-2013. No doubt, the Municipal Council has got power to pass resolution in accordance with the Municipal laws, but when the resolution is passed by the Municipality, which is aﬀecting the rights of the third parties, the ﬁrst Respondent has to issue a show-cause notice to the persons whose rights are being aﬀected. As the Petitioner is inducted into possession by virtue of a valid lease, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. Therefore, issuing the notice dated 09-03-2011, directing the Petitioner to hand over the possession is bad because the Petitioner is deprived of his right to give a representation. Therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice; as one of the basic principles of natural justice is t hat ‘no man should be condemned unheard’. Therefore, when the Petitioner is validly inducted into possession, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 09-03-2011 is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the ﬁrst Respondent to take appropriate action against the Petitioner, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J. Date.10-11-2011, Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 320 WRIT PETITION No.12875 OF 2011 Date: 10-11-2011 Dsh.