resolving to extend the period of lease by 3 years. The Petitioners have given representation for the extension of lease, however, no decision is taken by the Respondent – Corporation in that regard. The State Government has also not taken any decision with regard to Resolution No. 1231 although the stay was granted long back. The government is required to take decision about the said Resolution. The learned counsel submits that, the Petitioners are always ready to pay the amount as per the market rate, however, the Respondent now is demanding the rent 5 times the market rate. According to the learned counsel, the corporation does not have any right to set aside their earlier Resolutions to the detriment of the Petitioners. The Resolution No. 1497 is also pending for approval which is sent by the corporation to the government. The same is for extension of lease period of the tenants like Petitioners. The said Resolution is passed in the year, 2013. Though, the Resolution is sent to the government for approval no decision has been taken by the government for approval as yet. Some of the similarly situated tenants who had received notices had approached the District Court by filing appeal U/Sec. 81 (f) of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. The Respondent – Corporation took a stand that the said notices are not notices of eviction and the corporation does not have any intention to evict them and the Resolution is passed which is pending for approval. The Petitioners as such have legitimate expectations that their lease period would be extended. The learned counsel further submits that, the Respondent – corporation is now estopped by the principle of promissory estoppal to take a different stand. The Respondent – Corporation being an instrumentality of the State has to act as a model litigant. According to the learned counsel, the government also is sitting over the Resolutions pending before it and is not
