E. Padmanabhan, J.

1. The above batch of writ Appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Honble single Judge in W.P.Nos. 2475, 3673, 4073, 4074, 6809 of 1997 etc. on 8. 97. Pending the Writ Appeals, the above writ petitions have been filed and being identical, hence on the orders of the Court, the writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were consolidated and taken up together for final disposal. The appellants/writ petitioners, allottees of shop in the Corporation Fruit Market, Chennai, challenge the impugned action taken by the Corporation of Chennai terminating their licence and calling upon the licencees to vacate and surrender possession of the respective shops in their occupation. As common questions have been raised in all the above matters, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. It is also to be pointed out that either the petitioner is an individual or an association representing the individual licencee in the same Corporation fruit market and their pleas are identical in all respects. Common arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners. So also on behalf of the contesting respondents. Writ Appeal Nos. 1150 and 1151 of 1997 were respectively preferred against the order passed by the Honble single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3673 and 6890 of 1997 respectively. In the said writ petitions, the writ petitioners prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent Corporation of Chennai, its men, officers, servants etc. from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the shops at the fruit market, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-1 allotted to the individual allottees. Some of the writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification of the respondent Corporation whereby licence granted in favour of the allottees have been cancelled. For convenience, the appellants as well as the petitioners in the writ petitions will be referred as arrayed in the writ petition/Appeal.

.2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the shops in the fruit market and Narayanappa Street at N.S.C. Bose Road were leased out to the respective occupants/stall were leased out by the respondent Corporation to the respective allottees, that the allottees are lawfully inducted lessees and continued to be the lawful lessees and carry on their business in the said shops, that the Corporation fruit market is a public market as defined under Section 300 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, that the occupants are tenants under the respondent Corporation in respect of the stalls in their occupation, that the occupants were granted lease of the respective stalls on an agreed rate of rent, and the same has been revised from time to time, that by mutual agreement and consent the rates of rent have been revised periodically, that the respondent Corporation cannot unilaterally enhance the rent, that the occupant who is a petitioner, either individually or member of the association which is a petitioner in the writ petition are carrying on their business right from the day when the fruit market had been constructed and let out, that the occupant allottee is ready and willing to pay the revised rate of rent, that the lease in favour of the petitioner allottee is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act of 1973 and Act 1 of 1990 or the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, that as late as 17. 96, the respondent Corporation threatened the lessees with action for non-payment of rental arrears with summary eviction, that the powers under Section 302(2) or any regulation framed under Section 308 or any byelaw framed under Section 349 cannot be invoked by the lessee of the shop to forcefully evict the petitioner, that the lessees have not been informed any conditions of licence or any regulation or bye-law, that the lessees have been carrying on business continuousl