HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6821 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction of the second respondent in failing to consider the petitioners’ application not to evict them from their respective shops in the Municipal Shopping Complex at Station Park, Warangal, and in issuing auction notice bearing R.O.C.No.A1/8600/2010 dated 20.03.2010, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners, 11 in number, are lessees of shops belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Warangal having entered into a lease agreement for the period 01.10.2009 till 31.03.2010. It is their case that they are eking out their livelihood from the income derived from their shops; the rent of the shops was enhanced a month ago from Rs.3,600/- to Rs.6,000/- P.M.; the tenants of some of the shops in the complex were still paying Rs.3,600/- P.M.; the second respondent had issued eviction notice dated 26.12.2009 to the petitioners informing them that the lease period was due to expire on 31.03.2010; they should vacate the premises immediately after expiry of the lease; and, despite their request for extension of lease, the second respondent had issued auction notice in R.O.C.No.A1/8600/2010 dated 20.03.2010. The petitioners question the action of the respondents in seeking to evict them from the said shops. Sri M.Salim, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would draw my attention to Section 148 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), as extended to the Warangal Municipal Corporation, whereunder, for grant of lease of immovable properties beyond a period of 12 months and upto three years, sanction of the Standing Committee is required and, in case the period of lease exceeds three years, the previous sanction of the Corporation and the Government is required. It is not the petitioners’ case that, under the lease agreement between them and the second respondent, they were entitled to continue to retain possession of the shops in question beyond 31.03.2010. The auction notice dated 20.03.2010, whereby the general public were informed that the auction would be held for grant of leasehold rights of shops, belonging to the Municipal Corporation, on 07.04.2010 is only after expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2010. It is only after the highest bid is accepted, and before a lease agreement is entered into between the Corporation and the highest bidder, is Section 148 of the Act required to be complied with. I have no reason to doubt that the second respondent would adhere to the statutory requirements of Section 148 of the Act before a lease agreement is entered into between the Corporation and the highest bidder in the auction. That would, however, not entitle the petitioners to continue to retain possession of the shops in question after expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2010 more so as they were put on notice, as early as on 26.12.2009, that they should have to vacate the premises after 31.03.2010. I see no reason, therefore, either to permit the petitioners to continue to retain possession of the shops in question after expiry of their lease period on 31.03.2010 or to interdict the auction proposed to be held on 07.04.2010. Needless to state that the petitioners are also entitled to participate in the auction and, in case their bid is found to be the most competitive, I have no reason to doubt that the second respondent would consider granting leasehold rights in their favour after adhering to the conditions prescribed in Section 148 of the Act. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:06.04.2010 Usd