JAYABALAN Vs. COMMISSIONER COMMUNE PANCHAYAT THIRUNALLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Packiaraj learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sreenivasan learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Ko. No: 16/2007-08-VA.BAL/ THI.KO.PA dated 19.07.2011 wherein the respondents have taken a decision to take over the possession of shops, which was given on public auction, after the expiry of the period of lease which stood extended upto 30.06.2011 and seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to renew the lease period based on petitioner's representation dated 27.06.2005.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he got the shop No: 13 (10 x 8= 80 sq. ft.) at Commune Panchayat "Vanigavalagam" in the year 2008-2009 and was running a photo shop under the name and style of "Sri Kumaran Photos". THEre are 7 shops in existence in that complex and such shops were occupied by the Bank, ATM, Library and other persons for the past 10 years. In a public auction, petitioner paid a sum of Rs.9,200/- per year on 01.04.2008 and thereafter, on 23.03.2009 the respondents sent an intimation memo stating that if the petitioner wanted to extend the lease period, he has to pay 10% extra amount out of the earlier lease amount. THEreafter, for the year 2009-2010, petitioner received an intimation on 09.03.2010 and the respondent renewed the lease before 18.03.2010 and thereafter, he paid the sum of Rs. 10,879/-. It is his claim that the period of lease granted for the second time was over on 3103.2011 but the respondents sent a notice on 23.03.2011. Due to election, the lease period was extended for another three months and he was called upon to pay three months lease amount with 10% extra amount and accordingly, he paid the same on 23.03.2011 itself and the said three months extended period of lease also expired on 20.06.2011.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication has been issued by the respondents without looking into the grievance expressed by the petitioner in his representation dated 27.06.2011 and hence, it is contrary to the Rules and Guidelines in existence and, therefore, the action of the respondents directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession to Panchayat cannot be sustained as it will prejudice and cause undue hardship to the petitioner.