Gudavalli Usha Lakshmi vs. The Eluru Municipal Corporation Eluru

Held

The Court directed the second respondent to execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the subject shop, provided she complies with all other terms and conditions. The Court did not delve into the legality of the eviction notice itself but focused on facilitating the execution of the lease agreement. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that she had complied with the requirements and was ready to fulfill remaining obligations. The Court implicitly accepted the petitioner's readiness to comply and the respondents' stated reason for delay (petitioner's delay in approaching) as surmountable. The ratio is that if a party has substantially complied with the conditions for allotment and is ready to fulfill remaining obligations, and the authority has a stated reason for delay that can be rectified, the authority should proceed with the formal execution of the lease agreement. The Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The petitioner, along with 29 others, operated small shops for over 30 years. Their shops were removed in 2016 for road and drainage extension. The Municipal Corporation decided on 10.01.2017, ratified on 23.12.2017, to allow them to construct new shops at their own cost in vacant land (TS No.660), on condition of paying monthly rent. A resolution on 25.05.2018 allotted shops, fixing the petitioner's rent for Shop No.G3 at Rs.3257/-. Despite the petitioner's readiness to comply, notices for rent payment were not issued. Subsequently, the petitioner learned notices were issued to 23 of the 30 allottees, and agreements were executed. The petitioner submitted a representation on 18.06.2019, and was informed she needed to pay Rs.9,771/- as rent security deposit and Rs.1758/- towards GST. She submitted DDs for these amounts on 20.06.2019, requesting a lease agreement. However, the respondents initiated eviction proceedings, leading to the filing of this writ petition. Interim orders prevented eviction. The petitioner's counsel submitted that all relevant documents were provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner for Shop No.G3 is illegal and arbitrary, considering the petitioner's compliance with the terms and conditions for allotment and payment of dues, including GST. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and the terms of the Municipal Corporation's resolutions and subsequent actions. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that she had fulfilled all the conditions for allotment, including making payments for rent security deposit and GST, and was ready to comply with all terms. She contended that the eviction proceedings were arbitrary as she had followed the prescribed procedure and was awaiting the execution of the lease deed. She relied on the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation and the fact that lease deeds were executed for other allottees. Revenue/State's contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner approached the second respondent with some delay, which resulted in the delay in allotment.