The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in scrutinizing the conduct of the authority and the requirement of rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, particularly in the context of lease termination and demand for rent.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the eviction order published through public notice dated 18.05.2022 passed by the 1st respondent published in the daily newspapers in Dinamani on 18.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the lease of Shop No.124 up to the year 2025 by duly collecting the rent already fixed in accordance with law.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

2. The respondent Corporation inducted the petitioner as an occupant of the petition mentioned shop in the year 2003 on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner was remitting the monthly rents without any default. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 providing for extension of such licenses. The said Government Order contemplated two block periods of nine years each. The first block period was to be calculated from the date of the Government Order. Once in three years, the licensee was to pay the enhanced rent. After the first block period gets over, there has to be a redetermination of the license cannot be taken into account the market value. The licensee will thus be entitled to be in occupation of the shop allotted to her for a continuous period of 18 years provided, there is no default in the matter of payment of rent and there is no breach of license terms and conditions.

3. While so, the first respondent issued the impugned public notice terminating the license of the writ petitioner and bringing the petitioner's shop to public auction. The notification dated 17.05.2022 is put to challenge in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned notification and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the petitioner's lease.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel submitted that Tirunelveli Corporation has been implementing Smart City project. The petitioner is an occupant of a shop located in Bharat Ratna Dr.M.G.R. Bus stand, Melapalayam. The Corporation has put up additional constructions. Thus new shops have come up. As a result, the scenario has completely changed. On account of the implementation of the Smart City project, the market value has also gone up. Therefore, the petitioner is also obliged to pay the lease amount at the same rate that is applicable to the newly constructed shops. The petitioner was given an offer. Since the petitioner did not favourably respond to the same, left with no other option, the first respondent issued the impugned notice. He submitted that there is no scope for interference and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

7. The case on hand is one in which the local body is a party to the contract. When a local body or State is a party to a contract, then in the very nature of things, the Court will be entitled to scrutinise the conduct of the authority in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 2299 (Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain and Ors.) has held as follows:-

“... 678. The preamble to our Constitution by which the people of India resolved solemnly to secure to all its citizens equality of status and opportunity finds its realization in an ampler measure in Article 14 which guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of laws to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike. ...

681. This Court, at least since the days of Anwar Ali Sarkar's case , has