IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11171 OF 2005 DATE:14.12.2009 Between: Poosarla Venkata Ramana and 3 others …… Petitioners And: The Special Officer and 2 others …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11171 OF 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are lessees of the shops belonging to the Kakinada Municipal Corporation, seek a direction by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in enhancing the rents pertaining to shop Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, situated opposite to Bangaruvari Choultry in Kakinada, as illegal and arbitrary. In the Municipal limits of Kakinada Municipal Corporation, there are certain notified markets, which are being auctioned on daily fee basis. Apart from the said notified markets, there are certain shops owned by the Municipal Corporation, which are being leased out from time to time. Admittedly, the petitioners are lessees of the shops, which are situated opposite to Bangaruvari Choultry, Kakinada. The leases for shop Nos.1 to 4 were renewed up to 31.05.2005, thereafter, the petitioners have made a representation on 14.03.2005, stating that similar shops were leased out for lesser rents, and as such, requested the respondents to fix the rents reasonably. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of such representation, the respondents have not considered it and are taking steps to enhance the rents of their shops. It is also the case of the petitioners that though their shops are also located in the similar locality of the shops, which are being auctioned on daily fee basis, and inspite of their request, their shops are not being auctioned on daily fee basis. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. In the counter-affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that there are 10 shops belonging to the Municipal Corporation in the Municipal market area opposite to Bangaruvari Choultry, and that they are being leased out to 10 lessees for the last several years. It is further stated that the last lease period was expired by 31.05.2005, and as such, all the lessees were informed in advance for submitting their applications for renewal of leases on 33 1/3% enhancement of rent, and also to pay the arrears of rents. Thereupon, except the petitioners, who are the lessees of shop Nos.1 to 4, all others have paid their dues and applied for renewal of their leases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.686 M.A. dated 30.07.1968. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. With regard to the plea of the petitioners that their shops are to be notified along with the market shops, which are being auctioned on daily fee basis, from the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that these shops are not located in the market area. It is stated that out of 10 shops, 4 shops, which are in possession of the petitioners and remaining 6 other shops, which are situated opposite to Bangaruvari Choultry, are being leased out individually right from the beginning. When it is stated that these shops are not located in the market area, the petitioners cannot allege any discrimination by comparing their shops with the shops that are inside the market. The shops, which are outside the market, have to be leased out in terms of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.686 M.A., dated 30.07.1968. As such, no direction can be given to the respondents to treat the shops of the petitioners on par with the other 6 shops, which are situated inside the market area. With regard to the claim of the petitioners that the rents, which are being charged from them, are at higher side when compared with the similarly situated shops, it is not possible for this Court to give any definite finding on the said plea. The fixation of rent will depend upon the factors, such as, location of the shops, etc. In that view of the matter, it is open for the respondents that in case any representation is made by the petitioners, the same may be considered in accordance with law, but no positive direction can be given for reducing the rent as prayed for by the petitioners. Further, as per rules, on expiry of leases, the same are expected to be renewed only with an enhancement of rent at 33 1/3% over the existing rent. Even according to the petitioners, their leases were expired by 31.05.2005. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any renewal of lease for the period beyond 31.05.2005, this Court cannot fix any rent nearly after four years of expiry of the leases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, permitting the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the respondents with regard to fixation of rent. If they plead any discrimination in fixation of rents, the respondents shall keep the same in mind while fixing the rents payable by the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:14.12.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11171 OF 2005 DATE:14.12.2009 GK.