THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18078 and 24689 of 2009 DATED: 21.04.2010 WRIT PETITION No.18078 of 2009 Between: R. Narahari Reddy and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION No.24689 of 2009 Between: M. Sarojamma .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: It appears, the petitioners in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 were granted leasehold rights in respect of shop Nos.1, 4, 8, 11, 14 and 15 respectively and the petitioner in W.P.No.24689 of 2009 was granted leasehold rights in respect of shop No.13 situated in Mandal Shopping Complex, Yemmiganur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, in the month of February 1998, for a limited period and, later on, lease in their favour was extended from time to time. While so, when the lease in their favour expired by 30.06.2008, the 4th respondent- Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Yemmiganur Mandal, issued notice dated 03.12.2008 requiring the petitioners to attend the meeting scheduled to be conducted on 15.12.2008 at his office, for entering into fresh agreements of lease at revised rent. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued another notice dated 30.05.2009, stating that, pursuant to his earlier notice dated 03.12.2008, the petitioners did not turn up and therefore directed them to vacate the premises on or before 08.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions contending that pursuant to receipt of notice dated 03.12.2008, they have attended the meeting and have also submitted a representation on 26.12.2008 to the 4th respondent, requesting to extend the lease in their favour, by enhancing the rent by 18% as was done earlier, but the 4th respondent did not extend the lease and instead issued the impugned notice dated 30.05.2009 directing them to vacate the premises. The petitioners further state that, pursuant to the impugned notice, they have submitted representations dated 29.07.2009 and 21.08.2009 to respondents 3 and 2 respectively, apprising them of the above facts and requested them to take necessary action for extension of lease in their favour, but the said representations have not been aced upon. Respondent No.4 filed detailed counter affidavit in W.P.No.18078 of 2009, denying the allegations made by the petitioners therein and it is stated that the petitioners committed default in payment of rents. It is further stated that as the lease in favour of the petitioners expired, notices were issued to them to attend the meeting for renewal of lease in their favour, but they have not attended the meeting. Further, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry on 18.06.2009, wherein it was found that petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 6 in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 have subleased the shops, leased out to them, in favour of third parties, contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease agreements and shop No.14 leased out to petitioner No.5 in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 and shop No.13 leased out to the petitioner in W.P.No.24689 of 2009, were closed. Therefore, an emergency meeting was called for on 27.06.2009, wherein the Committee resolved to evict the leaseholders. It is also stated that fresh agreements of lease were executed in favour of the sublease holders i.e. the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 and one M. Laxmi Devi, by the 4th respondent, in the months of July and August 2009 itself. The unofficial respondents in W.P.No.18078 of 2009, who got themselves impleaded as party respondents, have also filed counter- affidavit, stating that petitioners 2, 3 and 6 in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 have subleased the shops to them and, after enquiry by the 4th respondent, they requested the authorities to grant leasehold rights of the said shops to them, which was considered in the meeting held on 27.06.2009 and consequently lease agreements were executed in their favour and in pursuance thereof, they are continuing in possession of their respective shops. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities. It is not in dispute that the lease granted in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject shops expired and that no renewal has taken place, and thus no agreement of lease is subsisting in favour of any of the petitioners as of now. Though the petitioners state that they have attended the meeting on 15.12.2008 as required by the 4th respondent and requested for extension of lease, the same is disputed by the 4th respondent in his counter-affidavit by categorically stating that none of the petitioners have attended the meeting. This stand taken by the 4th respondent is not refuted by the petitioners by filing reply-affidavit. Though the petitioners contended that they have submitted a representation to the 4th respondent on 26.12.2008, seeking to extend the lease in their favour by enhancing the rent by 18%, it is not known whether thereafter they have made any enquiries with the respondent authorities as to their acceptance of such proposal. This apart, the 4th respondent has taken a categorical stand that, in the enquiry conducted by him, it was found that petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 6 in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 subleased the shops, leased out to them, to the unofficial respondents, in contravention of the terms and conditions of the lease agreements, which was also admitted by the unofficial respondents in their counter-affidavit. Further, shop Nos.13 and 14, allotted to the petitioner in W.P.No.24689 of 2009 and petitioner No.5 in W.P.No.18078 of 2009 respectively, are said to have been found closed. It is also categorically stated by the 4th respondent as well as the unofficial respondents that the request of the unofficial respondents to grant them leasehold rights of the respective shops, which were in their possession by way of sublease, was considered by the 4th respondent and agreements of lease were executed in their favour in the month of August 2009. When no lease is subsisting in favour of any of the petitioners and some of the petitioners were alleged to have contravened the terms and conditions of the lease, by subleasing the shops to unofficial respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 21st April, 2010 IBL