THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31546 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to vacate the leased shops in NTR Municipal Shopping Complex at Gudur Old Bus Stand as arbitrary and illegal and consequently declare the notice Rc.No.446/2000/A1, dated 18.11.2011, issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners as illegal and void. 2. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are lessees of the aforementioned shops. Though the leases are valid upto 2012-2013, they received a notice, dated 18.11.2011, from respondent No.2 directing them to vacate the premises within 14 days from the date of receipt of that notice on the grounds that the lessee has not executed the lease agreement, the lessee has not paid the lease amount from April, 2006 and the shop is being run by a benamidar. The petitioners were lessees of various shop rooms in Gudur Old Bus Stand area. Construction of pacca shopping complex was taken up by the Municipality under IDSMT scheme during the year 1996 in the old bus stand area. The shopping complex was completed in the year 1998 with 38 shop rooms. The complex was named as NTR Municipal Shopping Complex. Thereafter, the Government issued GORT No.404, dated 18.05.1998 and other orders allotting the shops to existing lease holders. Out of 38 shops, 26 shops were leased out to existing lease holders, two shops were given by open auction and the remaining ten shops were leased out to reserved categories. The rent for the shops in the front row was ﬁxed at Rs.1,300/- per month for O.C. allottees and for reserved categories at Rs.480/- per month. The rent for the rear side shops was ﬁxed at Rs.650/- for other allottees and at Rs.240/- for reserved categories. Some of the petitioners are doing business personally and some petitioners are doing under partnerships. The petitioners are poor persons doing petty business and eking out their livelihood. They have been paying the rent regularly to the Municipality. The allegation of non payment of rents from 1st April, 2006 is not correct. The Municipality issued proceedings in Rc.No.446/2000-A1, dated 10.05.2006, renewing the lease for three years on enhancement of 33 1/3%. Some of the lessees ﬁled a writ petition for a direction to renew the lease for a period of ﬁve years but the same was dismissed and so they made a representation to the Municipality. As the Municipality rejected the request of the lessees, the petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.568 of 2007 but the same was dismissed. During t he pendency of the writ petitions, the Municipality did not collect the enhanced rents. Thereafter, the Municipality issued a notice, dated 01.03.2008, to all the lessees demanding payment of rent at the enhanced rate from 01.04.2006 and accordingly, all the lessees paid the rents. The lease for the period for 2007 to 2010 was renewed by the Council resolution No.3, dated 01.02.2011 and accordingly, the Commissioner served a demand notice on 19.02.2011 on the lessees demanding the diﬀerence of rent during the said period. All the lessees paid the said amount and therefore, the lessees are not in arrears of rent for any period much less from April, 2006. The Council passed resolution No.45, dated 16.05.2011 renewing the leases for the period 2011-2013 on enhanced rent of 33 1/3% on the existing rent and consequently, issued notices, dated 17.05.2011, to the petitioners informing about the renewal and the enhanced rents payable. Certain conditions are stipulated in that notice viz., that the lessee shall submit solvency certiﬁcate for R s . 1 lakh. As the petitioners deposited either three months rent as security deposit or cash deposit, they need not produce the solvency. On the conditions that within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, they shall execute and register the lease agreement, the Commissioner informed them that he cannot come to Sub- Registrar Oﬃce in individual cases and he would ﬁx a date and communicate the same to all the lessees so that all the agreements can be executed and registered on one day. Insofar as the aspect of payment of rent from April, 2006 onwards, the petitioners are not in arrears of any rent to the Municipality. Insofar as the third allegation that as per the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department of GAD, the shop is being run by a benami is without any substance. The respondents have not given the details of the benamies nor furnished the copy of the said vigilance report. The respondents ought to have given them an opportunity to explain the allegation, but they unilaterally came to a conclusion and directed them to vacate the premises. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Though twenty seven persons are impleaded as petitioners, the learned counsel for petitioners stated that this writ petition may be treated as petition ﬁled by petitioner No.2. Permission is accorded. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 contended that petitioner No.2 is doing business in the premises in question personally and that the lease is subsisting till 30.11.2013 and therefore, the impugned order does not contain any grounds for evicting petitioner No.2 and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the fact that petitioner No.2 sub let the premises contrary to the lease terms, the impugned proceedings have been issued and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the lease in respect of the shop in which petitioner No.2 is doing business is subsisting till 30.11.2013. The allegation is that petitioner No.2 has not paid the rents within stipulated time from April, 2006 onwards and also he sub let the premises. The name of the benami, who is doing the business, has not been stated in the impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside because of non-furnishing of the grounds and reasons for evicting petitioner No.2. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. However, this order will not preclude the respondents in taking appropriate action against petitioner No.2 if he violates terms and conditions in the lease deed by following the procedure contemplated under Section 194 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 01st December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31546 OF 2011 Date:01.12.2011 AMD