THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29058 of 2008 and 26588 of 2009 Date:05.12.2009 Between: Narayanasetti Sangameswara Rao. ..Petitioner and Srikakulam Municipality. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29058 of 2008 and 26588 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Shop No.MG 43 owned by the Srikakulam Municipality was given on lease to one A. Ramanaiah about forty years ago. The petitioner states that he joined as a partner of Ramanaiah and conducted the business for quite some years. He state that Ramanaiah retired from the business from 1994 and on receiving the goodwill amount of Rs.15,000/-, he gave no objection for the petitioner to continue as lessee. According to the petitioner when he approached the respondent for re-allotment in his name, reply was given to the effect that even without formal change he can continue as lessee and accordingly, he remained in possession of the same. The municipality intended to re-construct the shops almost in the same pattern. All the lessees as well as the petitioner vacated the shops and new shops were constructed. Obviously on account of the undertaking given by the municipality, the previous lessees were allotted reconstructed shops. However, they did not allot new shop No.MG 43 to the petitioner. W.P.No.29058 of 2008 is filed alleging that the representation made on 03.11.2008 by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent. In said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 31.12.2008 directing that the respondent shall consider the representation made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent considered the representation and rejected the claim of the petitioner by an endorsement 14.02.2009. It is stated that inasmuch as the lessee/allottee of shop No.MG 43 was no more, the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. The same is challenged in W.P.No.26588 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. It has already been mentioned that all the shops owned by the respondent were demolished and in their place, new ones were constructed. The lessees of the shops were granted fresh leases in respect of new shops, but quite large number of shops are said to be still vacant. The petitioner wants that he be treated as old lessee and a shop be allotted to him on par with previous lessees. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not a lessee at any point of time. Even though Ramanaiah is said to have discontinued the business, the rent was being paid in his name alone. Unless and until the respondent has recognized the petitioner as a lessee, he cannot claim the rights on par with other lessees. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned endorsement. Be that as it may, the respondent has any way to allot lease vis-à-vis the vacant shops. The request of the petitioner can be considered in case he emerges as the higher bidder, or if he is ready to pay the highest bid amount for the shop concerned. On the other hand, if it is by way of inviting applications, the case of the petitioner shall be considered on priority basis having regard to his previous possession over the premises. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05th December, 2009 GHN