RAMACHANDRA RAO P Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioners herein are lessees of the shops owned by the third respondent, the Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada. Petitioner Nos.1 to 15 are in possession of the shops situated on the Northern side Block No.1 of Sri Potti Sri Ramulu High School belonging to the third respondent-Municipality; whereas petitioner Nos. 16 to 18 are in possession of the shops situated on the Western side Block No.l. Lease agreement between the petitioners and the third respondent stood expired 30-9-1996, except in the case of the Petitioner Nos. 16 to 18, whose lease stood expired on 31-12-1996. The petitioners herein assert that they are entitled for automatic renewal of their lease as per the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) . While so, the third respondent-Municipality issued notice bearing No.A1/5573/96, dated 9-8-1996 to petitioner Nos.l to 15 expressing its willingness to renew the lease for a further period of three years on condition of enhancement of rent by 33 1/3% over and above the existing rent and the petitoners were asked to express their willingness, if they so chose for renewal of the lease on the said condition. The petitioners further informed that if they were not willing to pay enhanced rent, the shops would be put to public auction for the purpose of granting lease. Petitioner Nos.1 to 15 have submitted representation to the third respondent bringing to its notice about an order passed by the first respondent-Government in G.O.Ms.No.350-MA, dated 7-8-1995 relating to the case of one of the lessees of the same Municipal Shopping Complex, wherein the lease period for a further period of five years was renewed at the enhanced rate of 18% on the existing rent only. The petitioners claim for similar benefit as in the case of that lessee. The Commissioner of the third respondent-Municipality through his proceedings No.A1-7747/96, dated 5-11-1996 informed that the Council by its resolution No.240 dated 2-11-1996 had rejected the request of the petitioners and further directed that if the petitioners want renewal they should give consent for the enhanced rate of rent of 33 1/3% over and above the existing rent. Another representation is stated to have been submitted by the petitioners to the third respondent on 15-11-1996 reiterating their request to reconsider its decision. The request was again negatived and final notice dated 4-1-1997 was issued directing the petitioners herein to enter into agreement for further renewal of the lease on condition of 331/3% enhancement of rent within a week, failing which the petitioners were directed to vacate the shops. It is that order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefit as in the case of one of the lessees of the very same shopping complex, where the Government is stated to have issued necessary directions to the third respondent-Municipality to grant renewal of lease on condition of enhancement of 18% of the existing rent instead of 331/3%- The action on the part of the respondents, according to the petitioners, is not only unfair, but arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no reason whatsoever on the part of the third respondent-Municipality in not making similar recommendation to the first respondent-Government and renew lease for a further period of five years subject to the condition of enhancement of 18% of rent over the existing one.