P UTHAMI Vs. ERODE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop belonging to the respondent Municipality bearing No. BW-1 at the Shopping Complex at R.K.V.Road, Erode, was originally leased to one Thiru. Palanisamy. After his demise, the lease was renewed in favour of the petitioner who is the wife of the said Palanisamy, by order dated 6.6.1995.

(2.) By the impugned resolution dated 23.6.2003, the respondent Municipality resolved to renew the lease in respect of shops in R.K.V.Salai, Nethaji market and Nethaji salai and in and around Erode Bus stand for a period of three years i.e., 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006, subject to the enhanced lease rent of 16%. The lease in respect of the shop in question was not renewed on the ground that after the demise of the original lessee the petitioner is not entitled for renewal. This resolution was based on the Government order G.O.(2D)No.147 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 30.12.2000. Pursuant to the resolution, the impugned order was passed refusing the renewal. The Government order dated 30.12.2000 of course, enables the Municipality to bring the shops for public auction to augment the revenue. However, by the impugned resolution, it is not the case of the respondent that the shop in question is brought up for public auction and for that reason only the renewal was rejected, in fact, the renewal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the wife of the original lessee and after the expiry of the original lessee, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal. This is not purported in the Government order dated 30.12.2000. There is absolutely no such restriction in the said Government Order for refusal of lease to the legal heirs of the lessee. Moreover factually, the lease was transferred in the name of the petitioner as early as 6.6.95. Hence, the question of refusal of lease on the ground that the petitioner is the wife of the original lessee by applying the Government order dated 30.12.2000 cannot be entertained. For this reason, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly the same is set aside.

(3.) However, it is made clear that it is always open to the respondent Municipality to bring the shops either to public auction or renew the lease on enhanced rent. In making such a decision, there cannot be any discrimination or arbitrary. The right to resort to the Government order dated 30.12.2000 is always available to the respondent Municipality, subject to the fair and proper treatment to all the shop owners.