G A NAGARAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners are the tenants of different Municipal shops near Gandhi Chowk, Old Municipal High School, Hindupur, Anantapur District. By the impugned proceedings in ROC No. 2289/2010-Al dated 9.1.2012, issued by the 4th respondent-Hindupur Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, the petitioners were directed to vacate from their respective shops within fifteen days. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioners is that they were initially granted lease by the 4th respondent-Municipality and by virtue of collecting enhanced rents at the rate of 33 1/3 % as envisaged under Rule 12(h) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968, (for short 'the Rules'), they were allowed to continue in their respective shops for the last about fifteen years and that they are paying the said rents regularly: Their specific case is that the lease period in respect of all the writ petitioners, has not exceeded twenty five years. Earlier, when the 4th respondent-Municipality, issued notice dated 29.6.2011, directing them to vacate the shops, they filed writ petition in WP No. 18428/2011 and by order dated 1.7.2011, this Court directed the 4th respondent to follow due process, as contemplated under Section 194 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') for evicting the petitioners from the shops in question. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 9.1.2012, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that they are continuing in the shops of the 4th respondent - Municipality, for the last about fifteen years by virtue of the enhancement of rent by 33 1/3% per cent by the Municipality, as envisaged under Rule 12(h) of the Rules and they are not defaulters and have not violated any of the clauses under sub-section (1)(a) of Section 194 of the Act and their leases periods have not exceeded 25 years and, therefore, without issuing any show-cause notice, they cannot be evicted. Their further case is that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 6354/2009 dated 25.8.2009 directing not to accord sanction for renewal of leases of municipal property, beyond a period of twenty five years without conducting public auction, is not applicable to their cases, as their lease periods have not exceeded 25 years. Therefore, they filed representations dated 4.2.2012, but without considering the same, the 4th respondent-Municipality, is contemplating to evict them by using force. Their further case is that the shops of the 4th respondent-Municipality are not in dilapidated condition. With these averments, the impugned proceedings are sought to be set aside.