Sustainability of the order of eviction of person from the premises of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation.

The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing respondent to restore the petitioner, the possession of the V.O.C. park canteen, drive restaurant, Coimbatore by renewing the lease in favour of the petitioner in respect said premises for the period from 1.4.1988.

2. The petitioner took part in auction of a land and building comprises in V.O.C. compound, Coimbatore, from the respondent/Municipality when the leasehold interest was auctioned He was panted lease for three years to run a in the premises. It seems the petitioner was paying Rs.375 per month rent from 1981, was enhanced to Rs.1,163 from 1984, on the respondent becoming a City Corporation. In March 1987, the respondent asked the petitioner to vacate the within 24 hours on the ground that they proposed to suction the leasehold interest petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.842 of 1987on the file of the District Munsif Coimbatore, for declaring that the action of the respondent is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession and enjoyment the property unless evicted under due process of law. She also obtained interim injunction and continued to be in possession. On 14.3.1988 the respondent sent a the petitioner, stating that her claim for renewal of the lease will be considered withdrew the suit and sought for renewal of issue for three years from 1.4.1988 as but the respondent did not pass any order. It is stated that the petitioner withdrew on 29.1.1990, and the memo filed was to the effect that the suit may be dismissed settled out of court and that the petitioner/plaintiff reserved her rights to file a fresh future developments warranted such a course. The respondent sent a letter on asking the petitioner to pay Rs.30,230 being the difference of the enhanced rent from 86 to 1988-89. The respondent had increased the rent by 30% from 1985-86. When petitioner sought for time to make payment, the respondent insisted that the application would be considered only if the entire amount was paid, and hence it was full. It is stated that the petitioner spent considerable sums over the property meanwhile doing renovation work, believing the representations of the respondent lease would be renewed. When the renovation work at a cost of over Rs.2 lakhs was over, the respondent broke open the lock put by the petitioner and over-locked the on 19.9.1990, and sent a letter to the petitioner that they had taken possession. petitioner approached the Special Officer of the respondent and also made representations for renewal. Though action appears to have been initiated for granting renewal, no orders have been passed till the filing of the writ petition. circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the above prayer.

3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 83.1991. Mr. P.M. Bhaskaran, learned appears for the respondent and files counter.

4. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contends the action of the respondent in not renewing the lease from 1988 to 1991 is erroneous law. He points out that when the petitioner was under the bona fide impression lease would be renewed in her favour, and on account of the promise, she had the civil suit, paid the entire sum demanded and also renovated the premises heavy expenditure, she was dispossessed in a very high-handed manner. He contends that having asked the petitioner to pay enhanced rental and assured renewal would be granted in her favour, it was not proper on the part of the respondent dispossess the petitioner without following a procedure known to law. Learned senior points out, in law, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession till she is evicted a valid procedure known to law and the action of the respondent in keeping her out premises, inspite of the fact that Her movable properties continued to remain premises, is quite unreasonable. He further contends that a resolution was p