T.Ghandhi Raju vs The Estate Officer,
2021 Latest Caselaw 991 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

               Writ Petition No.21228 of 2020


Order:

        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

M.Manohar       Reddy,    learned   standing    counsel        for

respondents.

The Petitioner is the tenant of Shop No.26 belongs to

the respondent-Municipal Corporation. There is a

registered lease deed between the parties, which is dated

22.02.2016. The lease period expired on 31.03.2018.

Relying upon two G.Os, namely G.O.Ms.No.56 (Municipal

Administration And Urban Development(J1) Department),

dated 05.02.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.120 Municipal

Administration And Urban Development(J1) Department,

dated 31.03.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner's case is to be considered and

the lease has to be extended till he completes the period of

25 years from the date of the allotment. Apart from this, the

learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is aged 64

years and he is a heart-patient and has also obtained a

loan and that he was forcefully evicted without any notice

from the premises. He also prays for an order saying that

the auction is scheduled for leasing of the premises. Lastly

he submits that only the petitioner is discriminated against

and the other lessees in the same premises are not

discriminated against and are not evicted. Therefore, for all

these reasons, the learned counsel prays that the Writ

Petition should be allowed.

In reply to this, the learned standing counsel points

out that the allegation made that the petitioner has been

forcefully evicted or without any notice is not correct. He

points out that the reading of the impugned notice itself

shows that the representation dated 18.07.2018 given by

the petitioner has been expressly rejected. As per this

representation dated 18.07.2018, the petitioner wanted his

lease to be extended for 25 years.

A personal hearing was conducted on 23.01.2018 and

the petitioner attended the said hearing. Thereafter, the

request was expressly rejected and the petitioner was

directed to vacate the shop. Apart from this, the learned

counsel also relies upon the judgment reported in Kotha

Sambasiva Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1

wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature

at Hyderabad, while considering the similar subject held

that a mandamus cannot be issued for extending a lease

and that the petitioner does not have a vested right to claim

that his lease should be extended for a period of 25 years.

He also submits that the G.Os are not applicable to this

case.

2017 (4) ALT 564 (D.B)

After considering the submissions made, this Court

notices that there are two G.Os on the subject. The

G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011 states that the Municipal

Council may renew the lease for a period of three years at a

time. But when a lease has to be extended beyond a period

of three years and upto 25 years, it requires express

sanction of the Government. Apart from that, even in

G.O.Ms.No.120, dated 31.03.2011, it is stated clearly that

"In case the lease is completed for 25 years, no further

extension can be granted and the property should be put

up for auction". The G.O.Ms.No.56 and the terms therein

were the subject matter of the case decided by the Hon'ble

Division Bench.

The Division Bench considered the various provisions

of law and held that administrative guidelines issued in the

form of G.O which cannot be traced to any statutory power

cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Apart

from that the Division Bench also considered the question

of parity and discrimination and clearly held that unless

and until the other lessees with whom the petitioner seeks

parity and equity are before the Court, no order can be

passed on the ground of discrimination.

Last but not the least, this Court notices that in the

case on hand, there is a registered lease deed between the

petitioner and the respondent-Municipal Corporation.

Clause 21 very clearly states that the lease period may be

extended and renewed provided the lessee applies for

extension of a lease three (3) months before the expiry of

the term. Admittedly the term of the lease deed expired on

31.03.2018. There is no documentary proof filed to show

that prior to this expiry period namely by December 2017, a

request for extension was made. Therefore, as there is a

contract to the contrary, the petitioner cannot rely upon the

G.Os and seek for extension of the term. The Division

Bench also clarified that the terms of G.Os cannot be

enforced. Even if the literal language of the clause is seen,

it merely states that the discretion is vested with the

Commissioner to accept or not to accept the request. In

such circumstances, since there is no duty cast upon the

respondents to accept the request for extension, even it is

made correctly, this Court is of the opinion that a

mandamus cannot be granted. The petitioner is therefore

not entitled to any order whatsoever.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 19.02.2021 VSL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.21228 of 2020

Dated : 19.02.2021

VSL