Authorities must decide lease-renewal applications in accordance with the agreement’s renewal clause.

The petitioner was permitted by the Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela, to construct and operate a shop for three years—from 7 April 2018 to 31 March 2021—under Section 109 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.

The agreement contained a clause providing for renewal.

After expiry of the agreed period, the petitioner continued to operate the shop.

The Chief Municipal Officer issued a notice dated 21 September 2021 requiring the petitioner to vacate the shop, failing which it would be demolished.

During the proceedings, the High Court had directed the authorities not to forcibly evict the petitioner, pursuant to which he continued to run the shop.

The petitioner challenged the notice and sought renewal of the lease and protection against eviction without due process.

Whether the notice dated 21 September 2021 requiring the petitioner to vacate the shop was liable to be quashed as arbitrary, illegal, or without jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of renewal of the agreement in terms of its renewal clause.

Whether the petitioner could be evicted from the shop without following due process of law.

The Court applied Section 109 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, under which the agreement permitting the petitioner to construct and operate the shop had been executed for a specified period.

It further applied the contractual principle that the terms and conditions of an agreement, including a renewal clause, must be taken into account by the competent authority while considering a request for renewal.

The Court also continued the interim protection against forcible eviction until the authorities decided the petitioner’s application in accordance with law.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court noted that the agreement authorised the petitioner to construct and operate the shop from 7 April 2018 to 31 March 2021 and expressly contained a renewal clause.

Since the petitioner remained in possession pursuant to the interim order dated 30 September 2021, the Court considered it appropriate not to conclusively determine the petitioner’s entitlement to renewal at the writ stage.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit an application specifically drawing the authorities’ attention to the agreement and its renewal clause.

The competent authorities were required to reconsider the matter, if warranted, in accordance with law and the contractual terms.

Pending that decision, the Court preserved the petitioner’s protection from forcible eviction.

The authorities were directed to consider and decide the application within 60 days of receiving a copy of the order, keeping in view the agreement and its renewal clause.

The interim order dated 30 September 2021 restraining forcible eviction was continued until such decision.

The Court did not itself order renewal or finally quash the impugned notice.