Voluntary participation in an auction and agreement to the terms estops the participants from challenging the process, and the discretion of the respondent to fix the auction deposit is upheld.

The petitioners who are enjoying the property, without paying the amount of Rs.12,000/-which they quoted in the auction conducted on 21.04.2015 for the shops under their occupation have come before this court stating that the monthly rent is on the higher side so also Rs.2,00,000/-fixed as security deposit is exorbitant challenging the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the third respondent.

2. The petitioners are lessees in respect of shops owned by the third respondent Udumalpet Municipality. The lease came to an end on 31.03.2015 and therefore the third respondent issued paper publication on 03.04.2015 inviting sealed tenders for the auction to be conducted on 21.04.2015. The said auction was conducted on 21.04.2015 for many shops and for the petitioners shop no one participated except the petitioners. The auction price was fixed as Rs.12,000/-unilaterally by the fourth respondent and he threatened the petitioners if the petitioners did not accept Rs.12,000/-as monthly rent, he will be thrown out. Left with no other go as they invested much amount in the business, the petitioners were compelled to agree for the same.

3. Based on the auction conducted, order has been passed by the third respondent on 07.05.2014 granting lease to the petitioners from 11.05.2015 to 31.05.2018 and the said order granted in favour of the petitioners are being challenged before this Court stating that the petitioners (a) were compelled to pay the amount unilaterally by the third respondent under threat, (b) the amount fixed does not reflect the market rate as the market rate is only Rs.40/-per sq.ft. whereas Rs.400/-has been fixed by the third respondent and that (c) this court, in M.K.M. Geeyavudeen and others v. Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality, Pudukkottai reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 682 directed the third respondent Municipality to fix the rent based on the market value as per the principles laid down under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixation of fair rent and therefore as per market rate, rent is to be fixed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no resolution before passing the impugned order. When excess amount or exorbitant amount has been fixed by the respondent, the said decision is tainted with malafides and therefore he seeks to set aside the order.

5. Mr.B.Anand representing Mr.A.S.Thambusamy, learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner voluntarily participated in the auction and quoted the amount consequently the lease was granted in his favour. Now, the said order is being challenged before this court for unknown reasons. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.

6. Heard Mr.Rm.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondent.

7. It is very strange to note that persons choose to challenge the very order which is passed in their favour by the third respondent, Municipality giving the lease right to continue the business for a further period of three years, on the ground that the said decision to allot the shops was thrust upon them. First of all, the contentions are all liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the auction was only conducted by the third respondent inviting bidder. It was only an invitation and it is upto the persons to accept the invitation or not. In these cases, the petitioners are those who accepted the invitation, participated in the auction voluntarily and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-as monthly rent. Having done so, they are estopped from questioning the process. Even now, it is not too late for the petitioners to continue the business by paying Rs.12,000/-as monthly rent and equally it is open for them to vacate and

6 handover the possession of the shop to the Municipality, if they are not ready to pay the amounts as fixed.

8. As already observed, the petitioners, voluntarily participated in the auction and quoted Rs.12,000/-as monthly rent. Since th