Petitioner is a tenant of the Municipality.

The petition is for issue of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Notification issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A.4/ 15423/89, dated 21. 1990 and to quash the same insofar as the item 1 is concerned. Item 1 of the Notification relates to a right to collect fees in the weekly market for the period from 4. 1990 to 33. 1991. According to the petitioner, when the auction was held in the pervious year, he was a successful bidder for a sum of Rs.7,00,150. He was directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,300 every month. A document was executed on 4. 1989 on a stamp paper of Rs.5. Under that document the right of collecting the fees in the weekly market, Pudukottai during the period from 4. 1989 to 33. 1990 was given to the petitioner herein.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that the document is really one of lease and the petitioner has become a tenant under the Municipality by virtue of the said document and it is not open to the Municipality to hold a fresh auction for the period 1990-91 and dislodge the petitioner. The second contention is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.285, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 24. 1985, under the terms of which the petitioner is entitled to continue on paying an increased lease amount of 15% every year.

3. The contention of the Municipality is that what was given to the petitioner was not a lease and it was only a licence to collect fees from the persons who vend their goods in the weekly market at Pudukottai. It is also argued that the Government Order referred to by the petitioner is applicable only to lease of building, stalls, lands, shops, banks, etc. and not to a right to collect market fees.

4. The second respondent got himself impleaded as a party to this writ petition and the contention is that he is regularly taking in auction such rights of collection of fees in the Weekly market and he has preferred to offer a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 per year in the weekly market in question. He adopts the arguments of the counsel for the Municipality.

5. In one sense, the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the framing of the prayer. As pointed out already, the prayer is only to quash the notification of auction dated 21. 1990. inso-far as the Item 1 is concerned. That Notification was for the period from 4. 1990 to 33. 1991 and it has already been worked out. That Notification does not survive. Admittedly, no subsequent Notification for any auction has been issued by the Municipality in view of the order of stay granted by this Court in this writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence nothing survives in this writ petition insofar as the challenge to the notification is concerned.

6. However, the petitioner is making a claim which would affect the rights of the Municipality and if the claim is accepted the Municipality will not be in a position to auction the right of collection of fees in the weekly market unless and until the petitioner is dislodged in accordances with law. Hence it is necessary to consider the contentions put forward by the petitioner. Counsel on both sides argued the matter in detail.

7. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on two clauses in the document dated 4. 1989. In Clause I it is stated that the Municipal Council has granted to the licensee the sole and exclusive licence and authority to only collecting the fees in the weekly market by leasing to vendors situated at the registration sub-district. It is submitted that the expression used in "leasing to vendors". According to the petitioner, a right to lease out the property has been conferred on the petitioner by the Municipality under the document. Secondly, reliance is placed on the last clause of the document which reads thus: "He shall maintain the market shops and stalls and be in possession with the right of leasing the shops and the stalls. The licensee shall hand over possession of the buildings