THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18249 OF 2011 Date: 15th November, 2011 Between: P.A.Ansari and others …..Petitioners AND The State, rep. by its Secretary to Government of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban (II) Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18249 OF 2011 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in issuing notices in R.C.No.2289/2010-A1, dated 20.6.2011 to vacate their respective shops, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the third respondent to renew the agreements of the petitioners for a further period of three years. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition that all the petitioners herein are doing business as lessees of the shops belonging to the third respondent. The third respondent, vide proceedings in RC.No.299/2005-A1, dated 10.3.2005, extended the period of lease pursuant to the resolution No.256, dated 28.2.2005 of the third respondent for a period of three years by enhancing the rent at 33.1/3% over and above the rent prevailing as on 2005. As the leased period was expired on 31.3.2011, the petitioners have represented to the third respondent on 25.2.2011 with a request to extent the period of lease by another three years from the date of expiry and they were ready to enhance the amount of lease by 33.1/3% on the rent prevailing as on 31.3.2011 and that the third respondent issued notice to the petitioners as the lease period of the petitioners has been completed 25 years and to conduct public auction of their respective shops and also for reconstruction, directed the petitioners to vacate their respective shops within 15 days and handover the same to the third respondent vide RC.No.2289/2010-A, dated 20.6.2011. The notice also refers to the Judgment in W.P.No.6354 of 2009, dated 25.8.2009, wherein it was stated that where the State Government, in purported exercise of powers under Rule 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulations of Receipts & Expenditure) Rules, 1968 (for short, “the Rules”), granted sanction to the Municipal Counsel of Nalgonda Municipality to grant lease to the lessee therein over a cinema theatre a period of 25 years, but in the present case, the petitioners are granted lese over the shops for a period of three years from 31.3.2008 to 31.3.2011 and sought further renewal of three years and therefore the G.O.Ms.No.120 has no relevancy in this case. It is further stated that Rule 12(1) of the Rules empowers the Municipal Council of the respective Municipalities to renew the existing lease for a period of three years, if the present lessee agrees to pay the lese at 33.1/3% over and above the existing amount and that in the similar situation, the Kunool Municipal Corporation enhanced the lease period of its lessees on 31.3.2001 for a further period of three years by enhancing the rent by 33.1/3% and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment and that the petitioners are doing business from the past 25 years by obtaining loans from the banks and if the third respondent evicts the petitioners from their respective shops, they will be deprived of their livelihood. Hence, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition. 4. The third respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the petitioners herein are the continuous lease holders of the shops and they have no vested rights to seek extension of lease beyond the period stipulated or decided by it under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”) and the building in question is very old and it cannot have suﬃcient number of shops/space to accommodate more number of lessees in order to enhance the revenue of it though having very much demand for commercial space and if the existing building is demolished and a new complex is constructed, it will accommodate more commercial space than the existing building and some of the shops are in dilapidated condition as they are more than 80 to 90 years old. He has shown the list of shops which are in dilapidated condition in the tabular form as follows: Sl. No. Name of the shopping complex Total number of shops Number of shops which are in dilapidated condition 1 Vegetable market rooms 36 36 2 Vegetable market shops 6 6 3 Fruit market 35 35 4 New fruit shops 6 6 5 Mutton market stalls 21 21 6 Market shed stalls 3 2 Total shop rooms 107 106 He further stated that this Court issued clear guidelines in W.P.No.6354 of 2009, dated 25.8.2009 to all the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of the State of Andhra Pradesh to the eﬀect that if any leasehold rights are continuing for more than three years, those leasehold rights shall be put to public auction and the Local Authority has no authority to extend the lease period in a rotation manner, in order to give equal opportunity to all. Pursuant to the above order, the ﬁrst respondent herein has issued a Memo No.18823/J1/2008-I, dated 17.11.2009, directing all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations not to accord sanction for renewal of lease beyond the period of 25 years without conducting public auction. Pursuant to the said Memo, the second respondent issued an Endorsement in Endt.No.3336/07/N1, dated 2.12.2009, to all the Municipal Commissioners and all Regional Directors of Municipal Administration in the State to ensure action in pursuance of the Memo dated 17.11.2009. Later, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.120, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department, dated 31.3.2011, has issued guidelines in terms of the orders in W.P.No.6354 of 2009, dated 25.8.2009. As the said building is in the dilapidated condition and may pose danger to the public and to accommodate more lessees, the third respondent passed Resolution No.199, dated 27.3.2010, resolving to demolish the said building and to construct the same by evicting the existing lessees and accordingly the third respondent issued notices to the petitioners on 18.3.2011 and on 20.6.2011 to evict the above shops in question. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are running shops of the third respondent since 1996, that due to political pressure with an intention to evict the petitioners from the shops, third respondent issued notice on 18.3.2011 and subsequently issued notice on 20.6.2011 and trying to evict the petitioners forcibly. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of the respondents stated that the shops of the petitioners are in dilapidated condition and the Engineer of the Municipality had submitted a report to that eﬀect and the Municipal Corporation has taken a decision for removal of the old structures and decided to construct a new shopping complex and hence the petitioners have no right to continue in the premises in question. 7. The factual matrix are not in dispute. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of the shops in question and since 1996 they have been in possession and enjoyment of the premises by paying rents. The third respondent passed a resolution on 27.3.2010 vide resolution No.199, resolving to demolish the shops of the petitioners and others as they were in a dilapidated condition and therefore issued the notices. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to follow due procedure as contemplated under Section 194 of the Act for evicting the petitioners from the shops in question. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 15th November, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18249 OF 2011 Date: 15th November, 2011