IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29098 OF 2011 Date:31-10-2011 Between:- D. Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29098 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in sealing the shops bearing Nos.13-013-001 to 13-013- 004 (4 shops) of the petitioner without considering the representations, dated 08-08-2011 and 20-10-2011 for extending the lease period by enhancing the existing lease rent by 33 1/3rd % as per the conditions of the sale of lease as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner for extending the lease period by removing the seal of the shops. 2. The brier facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is carrying on the business in Shoes in the name and style of “Friends Show Co.”, in the complex of the respondentsWW Corporation bearing Door No.28-2-68 in 4 shops code No.13-013-001 to 13-013-004 by taking them on lease in 1999. One of the conditions stipulated under lease is that for every 3 years, the lease has to be extended on enhancement of rent at 33 1/3rd % on the existing rent. The petitioner deposited Rs.50,000/- towards security and is paying the rents regularly. The respondents extended the lease for the period from 22-10-2008 to 21-10-2011 by enhancing the rent. As the lease period is going to expire on 21-10-2011, the petitioner made representation, dated 08-08-2011, to the respondents requesting them to extend the lease period for another 3 years. But, the respondents did not take any action on the representation. The petitioner made another representation on 20-10-2011. However, without considering the representations made by the petitioner, the respondents sealed the shops in the evening of 22-10-2011 high handedly, without giving any reply to the representations made by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the proceedings in Rc.No.1207/1999/A7/Zone-III (Rev), dated …./10- 2009, the lease has been extended from 22-10-2008 to 21-10-2011 by enhancing the existing rent at 33 1/3rd % and that for extending the lease for another 3 years, the petitioner made representations to the respondents, therefore, he prays to give a direction to the respondents. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that after expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has no right to continue in the possession of the shops even by enhancement of the rent and therefore, the question of issuing any Mandamus to extend the lease period may not arise. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner was the tenant from 22-10-2005 to 21-10-2008 for the 4 shops in Jagadamba Shopping Complex of the respondents Corporation. After expiry of the lease period, the lease was extended by another 3 years, which ended by 21-10-2011, by enhancing the rental value by 33 1/3rd %. After expiry of that period, lease for another 3 years was not extended. It is for the authorities of the respondents Corporation to take decision for conducting auction in respect of the leasehold premises in question. The petitioner cannot have any right to continue in the premises in question, after expiry of the lease. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that his articles were kept in the shops and the shops were sealed by the respondents’ authorities. The petitioner can take all the articles and his belongings, which were kept in the shops, in the presence of the 2nd respondent or his nominated officer. Therefore, a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to open the lock to enable the petitioner to take back his articles, which were kept in the shops in question and thereafter, if the respondents wanted to lease out the same shops, it can be done by way of conducting a public auction after giving vide publicity. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 31, 2011. KTL