A. Sathar vs The District Collector and Another

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Ms. A. Jagadeswari learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Nagarajan, Government advocate for the

respondents. The writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P. No. 3455 of 1997 dated 14-3-1997 by the learned single Judge who

dismissed the writ petition.

The case of the appellant is that his lease for the period 1994-97 ended on 31-3-1997 and that the respondents have asked the appellant to

vacate the premises on 31-3-1997. According to the appellant in the year 1988, the premises was brought under auction and he was the

successful bidder in the auction bidding for Rs. 1,565/-. He was running the stall for three years i.e., from 1988 to 1991 and again in the year 1991

he applied to the second respondent requesting him not to re-auction the same and further requested that the lease may be extended for a further

period of three years on his paying 15% excess amount from the previous year. Since the second respondent did not agree to his request, he filed

writ petition, W.P. No. 3864 of 1991 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the auction notice and to direct the

respondents to extend the lease to him. This Court passed an order directing the respondents to collect Rs. 14,100/- per annum from him which

was the auction for the period permitted him to run the beef stall for another period of three years i.e., from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1994. Again in the

year 1994 when the period was due for fresh auction he applied for renewal of lease and he was permitted by the respondents to run the same for

the period between 1-4-1997 and 31-3-1997 on paying 30 per cent excess than the previous period. The appellant has been running the stall and

made further representations to the second respondent to renew the lease period on his paying 15 per cent additional amount from the previous

year''s amount by letter dated 10-2-1997 which was, acknowledged by the second respondent on 12-2-1997. However, the second respondent

sent a reply on 14-9-1997 stating that it is not possible for him to accept his offer to extend the lease period for another three years on his paying

15 per cent additional amount since the appellant had been given twice the benefit of extending the lease on payment of additional amount and

asked the appellant to take part in the auction. According to the appellant, he is entitled for a further period of three years from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-

1997. Therefore he filed the writ petition for a mandamus directing the second respondent, Avinasi Town Panchayat to quash the public auction

notice dated 28-2-1997 and subsequently direct the respondents to extend the lease period of the appellant to run the beef stall near the fertiliser

godown at Shandy Road, Avinasi on payment of 15 per cent additional amount for the period between 1-4-1997 and 31-3-2000. When the writ

petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, the same was dismissed by his order dated 14-3-1997. Learned single Judge while

dismissing the writ petition however, permitted the appellant herein to offer his bid in the public auction and if the appellant is the highest bidder he

will undoubtedly be in a position to continue his occupation. The writ petition was accordingly rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the writ

petitioner filed the above writ petition.

Notice of motion was ordered on 21-3-1997. Interim injunction was granted on 26-3-1997 and it was extended on 7-4-1997, until further

orders. We are of the view that the appellant has no vested right to continue in occupation of the premises in question. Admittedly, the premises in

question belong to the second respondent/panchayat which is entitled to lease out the properties owned by it by public auction. As rightly pointed

by the learned single Judge, properties owned by the Municipality are also a source of revenue to the Municipality and the interest of the

Municipality has to be balanced as against the interest of the shop owner lessee. It cannot be disputed that the lessees may also be entitled to a fair

term and the Government had, therefore, allowed the lessees to continue their occupation for a second term. As already seen the appellant was

given extension of lease period from time to time from the year 1988 to 31-2-1997 on terms. Even the last lease was extended for three years by

enhancing the rent by 30 per cent. Under these circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the appellant to ask for the extension of the lease for

further term of three years from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-2000 on an enhancement of 15 per cent of the previous rent. The extension granted earlier by

the Panchayat, to the appellant would not mean that the appellant is entitled to continue in possession of the premises in question for ever by paying

ridiculously low rent. We are of the view that the extension of the lease to the appellant is against the interest of the Panchayat. As already noticed

the rental income from the properties owned by the Panchayat is one of the sources of income to the Panchayat. Therefore, the interest of the

Panchayat cannot be jeopardised by permitting the appellant to continue in possession of the premises in question at the enhanced rate of 15 per

cent as prayed for. There are absolutely no merits in this writ appeal and the same is dismissed.

It is represented by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the public auction was held pursuant to the notification issued

earlier. Second respondent/Panchayat was restrained by an order of this Court in C.M.P. No. 4352 of 1997 dated 26-3-1997 from dispossessing

the writ petitioner/appellant till 7-4-1997.

In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, second respondent Panchayat is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

In view of the disposal of the writ Appeal, no separate or further orders are necessary in the connected C.M.Ps. and they are closed.