THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18428 OF 2011 Date: 15th November, 2011 Between: S.Ameer Basha and others …..Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18428 OF 2011 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioners’ from shops situated near Gandhi Chowk, Old High School, Old Municipal Office, Hindupur without considering their representation and explanation dated 29.6.2011 for renewal of their shops for the period from 2011 to 2014 enhancing rent of 33.1/3% and not renewing the same, as illegal, unjust and contrary to the provision II Rule 12(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968 (for short, “the Rules”) and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners’ from shops. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that all the petitioners herein are doing vegetable and fruits business in shops belonging to the fourth respondent since 1996 after renovating their respective shops with their own money. The rent was initially fixed at Rs.195/- per month and was being enhanced from time to time as per Rule 12(h) of the Rules by the fourth respondent and none of them was defaulted in paying the rents. While so, the fourth respondent issued notice on 18.3.2011 and subsequently issued demand notice in Rc.No.2289/2010-A1 dated 20.6.2011 asking the petitioners to vacate their respective shops within 15 days, failing which they would be evicted from their respective shops forcibly by putting seal. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation for the initial notice on 25.3.2011 and subsequent representation on 29.6.2011, requesting the respondents to continue them by renewing their respective lease period for the years 2011-2014 by enhancing the rent at 33.1/3% as per Rule 12(h) of the Rules, but the fourth respondent did not consider their representation and on 29.6.2011 at about 8.00 pm., he came along with staff and threatened the petitioners to vacate their shops immediately, if not they will be evicted forcibly from the above premises. In the similar circumstances, when the respondents herein were trying to evict some other shop owners, the Hindupur Wholesale Flower Mandi Merchants Association filed W.P.No.25576 of 2008 seeking intervention of this Court and this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the representations of the petitioners as per the Rules and later the writ petition was allowed and the petitioners therein were allowed to continue in their respective shops by renewing their licenses. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. The fourth 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 fourth 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 fourth 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 fourth respondent since 1996, that due to political pressure with an intention to evict the petitioners from the shops, fourth 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 fourth 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 fourth 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.18428 OF 2011 Date: 15th November, 2011