The absence of provisions for lease renewal after the expiry of the lease period and the authority responsible for considering lease renewal applications were central to the court's decision.

ORDER

Vivek Rusia, J. - The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 24.7.2020 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the renewal of the lease and mutation of their names has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

2.1 The petitioners are permanent residents of Indore. Respondent No.1 is a Municipal Corporation, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC). Both the respondents are the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2.2 A land measuring 13440 Sq.ft. situated at 40/1, Pardeshipura, Indore was originally granted on lease for 30 years by IMC to one Madanlal S/o. Shivbaksh. Later on, the said land was transferred to one V.V. Deshpande and it was further transferred to one Baldev Prasad S/o. Shivlal. Baldev Prasad transferred the said land along with the superstructure to Dwarkadas Agrawal i.e. father of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 transferred the lease dated 10.12.1979 in the name of Dwarkadas Agrawal for the remaining period of the lease up to 28.3.2009.

2.3 According to the petitioners, Dwarkadas Agrawal executed a Will dated 12.4.1980 bequeathing the land and the superstructure in favour of his grandson - Ajay S/o. Shankarlal, son - Bholaram, and grandsons - Prakash and Manoj in the ratio of 50%, 20%, 20% and 10% respectively. Dwarkadas died on 12.1.1981 and accordingly the Will. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid legal heirs of Dwarkadas Agrawal who became owners of the land and the superstructure by virtue of the Will transferred the rights in the name of petitioner No.1 vide gift-deed in the year 2016.

2.4 In pursuant to the aforesaid gift deed, the petitioners applied 2.2.2019 before the IMC for renewal of the lease and mutation of their names in the municipal record. A public notice was published in two newspapers inviting objections. The petitioners have been depositing the municipal taxes regularly in respect of the property in question. Respondent No. 2 vide order No. 421/lease/2020 dated 24.7.2020 has rejected the application on the ground that the lease had already expired on 28.3.2009 and after the expiry of the lease the lessee had no right to execute the Will, therefore, the gift-deed is prima facie illegal for want of authority and legal right, hence the application for renewal and mutation has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.

3. The respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The respondents have also denied the Will dated 12.4.1980 for want of probate u/s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents have also denied the execution of the gift-deed. It is further submitted that the building permission was granted on 26.12.1980, but the petitioners have no right to apply for renewal of the lease. It is submitted that the lease was determined in the year 2009 and under the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1994" for short), there is no such provision for renewal of the lease. Since the lease had already stood determined in the year 2009, therefore, the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016" for short) will not apply. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority V/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 406 on the point that there cannot be an automatic renewal of the lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and the lesse