THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31827 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to vacate the leased shop No.2 in rear side of NTR Municipal Shopping Complex at Gudur Old Bus Stand as arbitrary and illegal and consequently declare the notice Rc.No.446/2000/A1, dated 18.11.2011, issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner as illegal and void. 2. The averments, in brief, of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is lessee of aforesaid shop. Though the lease is valid up to 2012-2013, petitioner received impugned notice dated 18.11.2011 from the second respondent directing to vacate the premises within 14 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, on the grounds that the lessee had not executed the lease agreement, the lessee has not paid the lease amount within the time prescribed from April, 2006 and the shop is being run by a benamidar. The petitioner is poor person doing petty business and eking out livelihood, and has been paying the rent regularly to the Municipality. Originally, lease was granted in favour of husband of petitioner in S.C. quota on a monthly rent of Rs.240/- and after his death, it was transferred in her name. The Municipality issued proceedings in Rc.No.446/2000-A1, dated 10.05.2006, renewing the lease for three years on enhancement of 33 1/3%. Some of the lessees filed a writ petition for a direction to renew the lease for a period of five years but the same was dismissed leaving option to petitioners therein to approach the Municipality. So, they made a representation to the Municipality. As the Municipality rejected the request of the lessees, they filed W.P.No.568 of 2007 but the same was dismissed on 5.2.2008. During pendency of the writ petitions, the Municipality did not collect the enhanced rents. Thereafter, the Municipality issued a notice, dated 01.03.2008 to all the lessees demanding payment of rent at the enhanced rate from 01.04.2006 and accordingly, all the lessees paid the rents. The lease for the period for the years 2007 to 2010 was renewed and as per the demand notice issued by the second respondent demanding the difference of rent during the said period, all the lessees paid the said amount and therefore, the lessees are not in arrears of rent for any period much less from April, 2006. The Council passed resolution No.45, dated 16.05.2011 renewing the leases for the period 2011-2013 on enhanced rent of 33 1/3% on the existing rent and consequently, issued notices, dated 17.05.2011, to the lessees, including the petitioner, informing about the renewal and the enhanced rents payable. The petitioner is not in arrears of any rent to the Municipality. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner is doing business in the premises in question personally by paying the rents regularly within due date and that the lease is subsisting till 2012-2013 and that the impugned notice does not contain any grounds for evicting petitioner and so, it is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the fact that petitioner sub let the premises contrary to the lease terms, the impugned notice has been issued and so, it needs no interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the lease in respect of the shop in which the petitioner is doing business is subsisting till 2012-2013. The extension of lease is in pursuance of resolution passed by the Municipal Council. The allegation is that petitioner has not paid the rents within stipulated time from April, 2006 onwards and also the petitioner sublet the premises. The name of the benami, who is doing the business, has not been stated in the impugned notice. As regards non- execution of registered lease deed, the petitioner contends that she is ready to execute the lease deed, if the officials inform the date of Registration. With regard to non-payment of rent from April, 2006 within the time prescribed, the impugned order does not contain the due dates of payment of rents and the rents paid. It is not a case of non-payment of rent from April, 2006 onwards. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside because of non-furnishing of the grounds and reasons for evicting petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. However, this order will not preclude the respondents in taking appropriate action against petitioner by following the procedure contemplated under Section 194 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, if the petitioner violates terms and conditions of the lease deed. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 1.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31827 OF 2011 Date: 01.12.2011