Point of Law: Principle of Estoppel is only a Rule of evidence, but not a Rule of legitimate expectation and the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the act of the respondents in accepting the rents at enhanced rate of 33 1/3 % over the existing rent is not with the approval of the Standing Committee, as required by law. Such act of the officials of the respondents is contrary to the law, thereby such act will not enure any benefit to these petitioners to claim extension of lease period

ORDER :

1. All these there writ petitions are filed by different petitioners who are in occupation of shop rooms as tenants in Commercial Complex of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, questioning the Notices dated 09.01.2020 issued by the Estate Officer, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, calling for objections within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. It was also made clear in the notices that, if no objection is received within the time stipulated, further process will be continued for calling tenders presuming that he/she does not have any objection.

2. As the relief claimed in all these three writ petitions is identical under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, I find it expedient to decide these writ petitions by common order.

3. Since, the question involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, W.P.No.2524 of 2020 is taken as leading case.

4. It is alleged that the petitioners are lessees of the shops in Saibaba Temple Shopping Complex, Vijayawada, which in turn belongs to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Initially, the leasehold rights of the shops were put to public auction as per the rules in force and in accordance with A.P. Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. Initially the lease was granted for a period of three years and after expiry of the period of lease, the Corporation has renewed the lease every three years by enhancing the lease amount by 33 1/3 over the existing rent. It is submitted that, in the year 2003, the Corporation has transferred the lease in favour of petitioner Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and at that time, the Corporation has collected 18 months lease amount for transfer of the lease and also collected 6 months rent as security deposit. In respect of the first petitioner, the lease was transferred in the name of his father in the year 2003 and after his demise in the year 2010, the first petitioner is in occupation of the shop and continuing business of his father and the Corporation is accepting the lease amount. Similarly, in respect of the third petitioner, application for transfer of lease was made in the year 2014 and 2016 and so far no orders have been passed and the respondents are accepting the lease from the petitioners. On 01.04.2016, the lease amount was enhanced by 33 1/3 percent and the petitioners are paying the said amount at enhanced rate. However, three years period was expired by 31.03.2019 and thereafter, the Corporation has enhanced the lease amount by 33 1/3 percent, from 01.04.2019, the petitioners have been paying the lease amount to the respondents and the same is being accepted by the first respondent.

5. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent/Estate Officer issued the impugned Notices Rc.N5-143143/2019 (3 to 7 & 9 to 11) dated 09.01.2020, wherein a reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.120 MA & UD (J1) Department dated 31.03.2011, G.O.Ms.No.56 MA & UD (J1) Department dated 05.02.2011, Lr.Roc.No.1148/2015/J1 dated 11.02.2015 of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh and office proceedings Rc.N5-27836/1992 dated 04.06.2016, alleging that the lease period cannot be extended beyond 25 years and the lease was expired by 31.03.2019 and asked the petitioner to vacate the premises within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, since the premises has to be re-auctioned. It is further mentioned in the notice that, if the lessee has any objection with regard to the period of the lease, he may get necessary clarification by representing to the Estate Officer, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation at this office within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached the second respondent and stated that issuance of impugned notices is illegal and arbitrary and requested to continue the lease for further period and the second respondent refused to accept the show cause notices issued to these petitioners. It is contended that, evictio