APHC010244082021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14145 Between: Shaik Noorjahan Begum The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14145 OF 2021 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14145 OF 2021 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned order vide Rc.No.1537/2008/A1, dated 05.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2 in demanding to pay exorbitant amount of revised rents retrospectively from 12/2017 to 04/2021 without issuing any notice and threatening to evict the Petitioner from Shop No.18 of IDSMT Shopping Complex, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition is that the Petitioner was allotted shop No.18 of IDSMT Shopping Complex, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, as tenant and doing business therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- by executing a lease agreement dated 01.08.2011. The said lease period expired in the year 2016 and the same was extended without any further agreement for further period of 3 years as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011, without conducting public auction. It is stated that in the month of November, 2020, the Respondent No.2 threatened to lock the premises on the pretext that the Petitioner has to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards alleged enhanced rent and the same was paid under protest. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.2 issued impugned order dated 05.05.2021 demanding to pay Rs. 2,25,094/- towards rent terming as revised rents from 12/2017 to 04/2021 i.e Rs. 5,670/- per month, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/ Corporation would submit that the enhancement of rent was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.56 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department, dated 05.02.2011, the rent was enhanced at the rate of 33.33% and contended that the impugned notice issued by the Respondent/ Corporation cannot be faulted. 4. Having heard the Respective counsel, this court reasons as under; The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968 framed under Section 326 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, regulates the renewal and enhancement of rent. G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011 as it stands today, provides for renewal of lease for a period without conducting any public auction. The Rule 12(4) thereof reads as under; Rule 12(4): Renewal of lease of immovable properties : The Municipal Council may renew the lease of immovable properties for a period of three years at one time and with the prior sanction of the Government renew the lease for a period exceeding three years and not exceeding twenty-five years at a time without conducting public auction if the present lessee agrees to renew the lease in his favour at the rent as fixed hereunder and for revision of the rent once in three years as per the procedure specified below: (a) Rent at 10% of the current market value of the property per annum, i.e both building and land as per market value of the land and construction rates of the structures and buildings fixed by Registration Department under the Andhra Pradesh Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998 (or) (b) Rent at 33 1/3 percent above the earlier rent, or; (c) Prevailing rent of such properties in the vicinity whichever is higher”. 5. The language used in the above Rule is that the Municipal Council “may” renew the lease of immovable properties for a period of 3 years on certain conditions. In the event, the Municipal Council is inclined to renew the lease, the rent may be enhanced as provided under sub-rule (a), (b) and (c) thereto and on the contrary if the municipal council remains silent even after a lapse of lease period, the lease of the shops is to be deemed to be continuing at the existing rentals till a decision is taken for enhancement of rent or to issue an eviction notice in order to go for public auction. Another aspect is that the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968 do not contemplate any retrospective enhancement of rental amounts and in the absence of enabling power, the Respondent authorities are not entitled to make such a demand. 6. In this case, the petitioner was issued notice calling upon them to pay enhanced rentals retrospectively and for the foregoing reasons, the same cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while setting aside the impugned notice dated 05.05.2021 issued by the Respondent/ Corporation. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.07.2025 KK