and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke G.O.Ms.No.92, as the period mentioned therein is applicable to persons who became licensee in an auction conducted by the Municipality. Further, it is submitted that a lessee of the Municipality property like that of the petitioner is not entitled to be possession for 18 years from the date of G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007. Further, if the lessee violates the conditions of lease, the respondent Municipality has power to cancel the lease. Further, the encroached portion of the vacant land belonging to the Municipality and sub-let the portions of the land leased out to third party. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent on account of the violation of the lease conditions, notice has been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner explain as to why the lease should not be terminated and at that juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. It is further submitted that the Council of the respondent Municipality has taken a decision to remove the encroachments made by various third parties in the locality in question and take possession of the land and construct a shopping complex in the said place, which would earn good revenue for the respondent Municipality to carry out welfare scheme to benefit the general public. The allegation that the petitioner's father put up a titled construction in the property has been denied in the counter affidavit, while it is admitted that he had established an Auto-mobile workshop.
