SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order dtd. 24/7/2020 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the renewal of the lease and mutation of their names has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

(3.) The respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The respondents have also denied the Will dtd. 12/4/1980 for want of probate u/s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents have also denied the execution of the gift-deed. It is further submitted that the building permission was granted on 26/12/1980, but the petitioners have no right to apply for renewal of the lease. It is submitted that the lease was determined in the year 2009 and under the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1994" for short), there is no such provision for renewal of the lease. Since the lease had already stood determined in the year 2009, therefore, the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016" for short) will not apply. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority V/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. : Docid # IndLawLib/1022505 on the point that there cannot be an automatic renewal of the lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and the lessee becomes unauthorized occupant and he could not have executed the gift-deed in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents shall proceed to obtain the possession from the petitioners under M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 after the dismissal of this writ petition.