The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licenses of municipal properties cannot become a heritable right and that the licensees cannot claim a legal right for renewal of license.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.15512 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017 on the file of the Court.)

D. KrishnaKumar, J.

1. The petitioners/appellants who are lessees, challenged the demand notice issued by the respondent claiming increase in rent for the shops leased to the petitioners/appellants.

2. It is the case of the appellants that they have taken on lease various shops situated at Veerabardan Street Complex, Gudiyatham measuring approximately 80 to 150 sq.ft and they have been carrying on their trade/business in flowers, urban medicine, footwear, sweets, tea etc., and out of the meager income they have been eking out their respective livelihoods. While so, the 5th respondent increased the monthly rent exorbitantly from 01.07.2016 and issued notices dated 10.04.2017 to all the petitioners. The increase in rent was atleast 3 to 8 times higher than the existing rent and in doing so, the 5th respondent has not followed G.O.No.147 dated 30.12.2000 and G.O.No.92 dated 03.07.2007.

3. The learned Single Judge, in and by order dated 21.06.2017 dismissed the Writ Petition as against which the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. The Writ Court relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.V.Subramanian Vs. Secretary to Government, reported in 2014 (5) MLJ 129 and held that the Municipality had fixed the rent taking into account all relevant factors and the impugned notice did not warrant any interference and dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. The counsel for the appellants places reliance on G.O.No.92 Municipal Administration Water Supply department dated 03.07.2007 and contended that the appellants are entitled for renewal of license and the respondent municipality cannot claim exorbitant rents for renewal of license.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Municipality has submitted that the Writ Court has considered all relevant G.O''s and rightly held that the appellants have no right to seek extension of lease in perpetuity and prays for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

7. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are willing to clear the arrears due and payable by them and sought for a liberty to request the Municipality for renewal of the license of the appellants shops.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in while deciding the scope of G.O.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 3.7.2007 in P.Malliga Vs.The Commissioner, Erode City Municipal Corporation, Erode. [WA.Nos.366, 367, 793, 953 and 955 of 2021 dated 17.4.2021] has held as follows:

“11. The scope of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in P.Muthusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (5) MLJ 129]. In the said decision, it has been held that Municipality/Local Body is entitled to augment its financial resources by cancelling the existing licenses and put into Auction the shops.

12. In Tamil Nadu Municipal Shop Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2000 Mad 393], it has been held that leases/licences of Municipal properties cannot become a heritable right and that the licencees cannot be permitted to continue in possession of shops under the guise of right of renewal.

13. The respondent/Corporation has issued the Tender Notification and Public Auction for lease/licence for a period of 3 years from 2019-2022 and the said notification came to be published on 23.01.2019 and as per General Condition No.46, it is stated that "While implementation of Municipal Schemes, the places for which lease/licenses have been granted, in the event of requirement, the lessees /licencees shall hand over the same immediately without imposing any condition".

14. No doubt, the appellants/writ petitioners are having subsisting