The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.2757 of 2010 Order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation. With their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue direction, by way of Mandamus, to respondent No.1 to refer the matter to respondent No.2- Municipal Council, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, East Godavari District, for extension of his lease, in respect of the building bearing Door No.11-10-2, situated opposite to NGOs Home, G.N.T. Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, for a further period of five years from 13-2-2010, by declaring the notice issued by respondent No.1, vide ROC.No.7743/04-A1, dated 12-01-2010, as arbitrary and illegal. In the affidavit, filed in support of this Writ Petition, it is stated that respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation is the owner of the aforesaid building and that the same was leased out to the petitioner for a period of five years from 14-02-2005 to 13-02-2010, vide Lease Deed, dated 08-06-2005. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has submitted representation, dated 30-12-2009, before respondent No.1-Commissioner seeking extension of the said lease period for a further period of five years, the same is not being referred, for approval, to respondent No.2- Municipal Council, as enunciated in Condition No.5 of the said Lease Deed. Condition No.5 of the Lease Deed, dated 08-06-2005, reads as under: ‘The lessee is not entitled to any interest on rental deposit. The lease commences from 14-02-2005 and is in force for five years. After five years, on the prior permission of the Council and a fresh deed will be executed, the lease period can be extended for further period.’ On a perusal of the aforesaid condition, it is clear that in case the respondents-Corporation wants to extend the lease period, prior permission from the second respondent- Municipal Council has to be taken and fresh lease deed has to be executed. Mere submission of representation by the petitioner seeking extension of lease period does not create any obligation on respondent No.1 to refer the same to the second respondent-Municipal Council for approval. It is to be noted that in notice, dated 12-01-2010, respondent No.1 has intimated the petitioner that the existing office building of the Municipal Corporation needs renovation, and as such, they have decided to shift their office to the building in question, and accordingly, requested the petitioner to vacate and hand over the same to them, on expiry of the lease period. In view of the same, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 10th February, 2010 lur