THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6550 of 2010 Dated: 25.03.2010 Between: Gaddam Prabhalatha. .. Petitioner. And The Municipal Commissioner, Siricilla Municipality, Karimnagar District, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents, in not extending the lease period for a period of one more year, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P. Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the lease for a period of one year by enhancing 33% rent as per rules. The petitioner is a contractor who was entrusted with the work of collecting fees at the daily market and Pasuvula Angadi at Siricilla Municipality in Karimnagar District. A tender notification was issued in the year 2009 inviting applications and, pursuant thereto, the petitioner participated in the tender process. On her being found to be the highest bidder, she was awarded the contract for a period of one year. It is the petitioner’s case that the 1st respondent has constructed a shopping complex and a vegetable market yard in the leased out area, resulting in her incurring heavy losses as she was unable to collect daily market fees. The lease period is to expire on 31.03.2010. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 09.02.2010 requesting the respondents to consider extending the lease in her favour for a period of one year. Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on the second proviso to Rule 12(1) of the A.P. Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968 (for short ‘the Rules’), which reads as under:- “Provided further that in the case of the properties referred to in clause (e), the Municipal Council may renew the lease for a period of three years at a time and with the prior sanction of the Government for a period exceeding three years and not exceeding twenty-five years without conducting public auction, if the present lessee agrees to renew the lease in his favour at an amount which will be 33 1/3% above the earlier rent or the prevailing market value of such shops situated in the vicinity, whichever is higher.” The said proviso applies only in the case of properties referred to in clause (e) of Rule 12(1) of the Rules. Rule 12(1) (e) of the Rules deals with all sales or leases of buildings, or the terraces of buildings, shops or godowns, and of land belonging to the Municipal Council, the rents of which is expected to exceed Rs.200/- per annum. The lease granted in the petitioner’s favour is not one such falling within the ambit of Rule 12(1) (e) of the Rules. As such the second proviso which requires the Municipal Council to renew the lease, for properties referred to in clause (e) of Rule 12(1), has no application to the case on hand. In as much as the second proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Rules has no application, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. The contract, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, is a non-statutory contract. The remedy for enforcement of the terms and conditions therein, or to be compensated for breach thereof, is by filing a civil suit before a Civil Court of a competent jurisdiction. The Extra- ordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot, ordinarily, be permitted to be invoked for adjudication of such non-statutory contractual disputes. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if she so chooses, to avail other remedies, including by way of a Civil suit before the competent Civil Court, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 25.03.2010 v v/mrkr