1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.809 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Krishnan : Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner/ Block Development Officer, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Panchayat Union Office, Near Bus Stand, Dindigul. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings dated 11.11.2010 and 03.12.2010 in Na.Ka.No.4658/2007/A4, on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent to renew the lease of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.92 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 11.11.2010 and 03.12.2010 on the file of the respondent, directing him to vacate the shop given on lease to him by the Panchayat Union. 2. The Dindigul Panchayat Union conducted an auction on 21.01.2008 for the purpose of granting the lease. The petitioner was allotted shop No.3 for the period from 01.02.2008 to 31.01.2011. The petitioner has been running a fruit-cum-juice shop in the said premises. 3. According to the petitioner, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.92, granting automatic renewal of the existing lease for a further period of three years. The petitioner seeks the benefits of the said Government Order. In the meantime, the respondent has issued the impugned notice directing him to vacate the premises. This made the petitioner to challenge the proceedings. 4. The respondent has filed a counter, wherein it was indicated that G.O.Ms.No.92, has no application, insofar as the subject lease is concerned. According to the respondent, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.277, Rural Development (C-4) Department, dated 22.11.2001, granting liberty to the lessees to apply for renewal subject to the fulfillment of conditions. However, there was no application made by the petitioner to claim the benefits of the Government Order and as such, he has to vacate the premises subsequent to the lease period. Accordingly, the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 defended the proceedings. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner was granted privilege to conduct a shop for the period from 01.02.2008 to 31.01.2011. The petitioner all along placed reliance on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92 for the purpose of renewal of lease. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92 has no application, insofar as the lease in question is concerned. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner should be given the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.277. However, the learned counsel very fairly conceded the fact that the petitioner has not made an application before the cut off date as prescribed under the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277. 7. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277 provides that in case the lessee desires to continue the lease, he should make an application three months before the expiry of the lease period. The said condition was a mandatory one. Clause 23(2) of the Government Order reads thus: "23(2) The existing Lessee, if he desires to continue the lease for a further period, he may apply to the Executive Authority or the Commissioner or the Secretary, as the case may be, requesting the renewal of the lease in his favour atleast three months before the expiry of the lease period. On receipt of such a request, the Executive Authority or the Commissioner or the Secretary, as the case may be, shall place the matter before the respective Panchayats to fix provisionally a sum at which the lease can be renewed, taking into consideration the following factors:- (a) the increase in the market value of the building subsequent to the letting out of the present lease; (b) the appreciation in the increase of rental value of the building and other similar buildings in the locality; (c) consideration of growth and business of the locality in which the building is situated; (d) other factors such as the location of the property in close proximity to railway station, bus stand, business area and other factors which may have effect in the promotion of business." 8. The condition regarding three months notice was inserted with a specific purpose. The Panchayat should be informed of the desire of the lessee to continue for a further period of three years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 In case the lessee has no intention to get the lease renewed, the Panchayat has to take steps to conduct fresh auction. Therefore, the stipulation regarding three months notice has to be construed to be a mandatory one. It is all the more so, as the provision says "at least three months". 9. The petitioner has not given any notice to the Pancayat three months before the expiry of the lease. In fact, his claim was on the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007. It is only when the respondent has filed a counter, the petitioner seeks reliance on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277, dated 22.11.2001. However, the undisputed facts clearly indicates that the petitioner has not exercised the option within the time stipulated under the Government Order in G.O.No.277. The respondent was fully justified in directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the Panchayat. 10. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner should be permitted to continue the lease till the finalization of the fresh auction. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection with respect to the said course. In fact, it is to the benefit of the Panchayat. 12. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to continue the lease, till the confirmation of auction in favour of third parties, pursuant to the auction to be conducted. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has to pay the enhanced licence fee, as prescribed in the Government Order in G.O.277, dated 22.11.2001 for the extended period. He should also give an undertaking to vacate the premises immediately after confirmation of bid. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner/ Block Development Officer, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Panchayat Union Office, Near Bus Stand, Dindigul. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.809 of 2011 Dated:- 14.02.2011 SML/SMA/9.3.2011/2C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/