A lessee of immovable property belonging to a municipal 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.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Smt. Hima Bindu Kommula, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri S. Laxminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

'declaring the action on the part of the 2nd respondent in directly issuing the impugned notice/order vide Rc. No. 1/2022/1-4, dated 20.01.2022 without any notice to the petitioner with respect to the shop No. 3 in Lawsons Bay Colony shopping complex belongs to the 2nd respondent, Visakhapatnam District, in contrary to the established law and also hit by Audi Alteram Partem, as illegal, arbitrary.'

3. On 17.08.2022, the court passed the following order:

'Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration accepts notice for the respondent No. 1.

Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 represents that as per the impugned notice itself the licence period of the petitioner's shop No. 3 expired on 04.06.2011 almost 11 years back. Notice itself is dated 20.01.2022 and is being challenged after almost 7 months. He submits that there is Division Bench judgment of this Court, where the lease of a shop let out by the Municipal Corporation completed 25 years, then the same cannot be renewed but is to be settled afresh by public auction. He requests that the matter may be posted for Monday, to enable him to place the judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the writ petition, the staff of respondent No. 2 came to the petitioner's shop to execute the notice, to which Sri A. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that no action has been taken since the issuance of the notice and the same would also not be taken till Monday.

List on 22.08.2022 in the 'Motion List'.

4. On 24.08.2022, the court passed the following order:

'Heard Sri Dasari Prasad, learned counsel, representing Ms. K. Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted lease of the premises in question by the respondent No. 2 on 21.03.1987 with respect to which the agreement was entered on 21.04.1989. The lease was extended from time to time and finally it expired on 04.06.2011. The petitioner inspite thereof is continuing in the lease premises and is paying the lease rent which is being accepted by the respondent No. 2. A notice vide R.C. No. 1/2022/I-4, dated 20.01.2022 was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, mentioning that the lease period expired on 04.06.2011, but mentioning further that the petitioner has sub-let the shop in favour of K. Viswanadham and directing the petitioner to vacate the lease premises within three (03) days, against which the petitioner has submitted representation/reply dated 22.06.2022, which is still pending and has yet not been decided by the respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that after expiry of the lease period, though application for extension was submitted, but in view of the provisions of Section 148 (3) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which provides that in no case the lease period of immovable property shall exceed 25 years, the lease period was not extended. The respondent No. 2 also issued a notice dated 20.06.2013 to the petitioner to vacate the premises, but the same has not been vacated till date and consequently, the notice dated 20.01.2022 was issued for vacation of the lease premises.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 placed judgment of this Court in the case of Kotha