SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1255

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
V. Nagalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40221 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
K.Jyothi Prasad, Advocate, G.Naresh Kumar, Advocate

An applicant for grant of lease of immovable property belonging to the Corporation cannot claim as of right that they should be extended the lease for a period of three years each for a total lease period of 25 years, but has a right of consideration for extension of the lease period under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, subject to the conditions under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Act.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - EXTENSION OF LEASE PERIOD - RIGHT OF CONSIDERATION - SECTION 148(3) OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1955 - APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT OF CONSIDERATION FOR EXTENSION OF LEASE PERIOD UNDER SUB-SEC. (3), SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 148 OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a lessee of a community hall owned by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC), applied for an extension of the lease beyond the initial three-year period. The VMC issued a notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner had a right of consideration for extension of the lease period under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, subject to the conditions under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Act.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to claim extension of the lease beyond three years as of right.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 148(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and held that the Commissioner of the VMC had the power to grant a lease of immovable property belonging to the Corporation for a period beyond three years, but only with the previous sanction of the Corporation and of the Government. The court further held that the petitioner had a right of consideration for extension of the lease period under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Act, subject to the conditions under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notice, and directed the VMC to consider the petitioner's application for extension of the lease period in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 148 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration has accepted notice for respondent No.1.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the Writ Petition is being decided at this stage.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, in view of the submissions advanced, there is no need to file the counter affidavit.

4. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for issue of a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (in short 'VMC') in issuing notice, dtd. 9/12/2022, vide Rc.N4-145138/2015, directing the petitioner to vacate the leased premises i.e., Woodpeta Community Hall, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, in which the petitioner is running Sairam Garments and Tailors, as illegal and arbitrary, as also to set aside the said notice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being eligible was granted lease of Woodpeta Community Hall, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, vide proceedings, dtd. 14/6/2016, for a period of one year. The petitioner made ready the said Hall for the purpose of running readymade garments by investing huge amount. She has been regularly paying monthly lease amount. Lastly, it was extended from 8/12/2019 to 7/12/2022 for a period of three years, vide proceedings dtd. 9/3/2020, at the enhanced rate of rent. That period has come to an end on 7/12/2022, but under the terms of the lease, the petitioner, on 15/9/2022, applied for extension of the lease for further period at the enhanced rate by 33 1/3% over and above the existing rent. The said application of the petitioner is pending before the 2nd respondent, on which no decision has been taken and the impugned notice has been issued directing the petitioner to vacate the leased premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of Sec. 148(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the maximum lease period of immovable property can be up to 25 years, but, after three (3) years, there has to be previous sanction of the Corporation and of the Government. He submits that without considering the petitioner's application, the petitioner cannot be asked to vacate, inasmuch as she had timely applied before expiry of lease period of three years.

6. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.2, submits that the petitioner cannot claim extension of the lease beyond three years as of right. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kotha Sambasiva Rao v. State of Andhra Praesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Amaravathi, 2017(4) ALT 564(DB).

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The short controversy involved is as to whether during the pendency of the petitioner's application seeking extension of the lease period beyond three (3) years, the petitioner could be asked to vacate the premises by the impugned notice or the petitioner has right of consideration of her application by the competent authority and it is only after the decision is taken thereon and rejection thereof a notice could be issued.

9. Sec. 148 of the Act, provides as under.

"148. (1) Subject to the provisions of sec. 124, the Commissioner may dispose of by sale or exchange any movable property belonging to the Corporation the value of which does not exceed rupees twenty five thousand in each instance, or grant for any term not exceeding twelve months a lease of any immovable property belonging to the Corporation or lease or concession of any right of fishing or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top