CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition coming up for orders on the application made by the respondent-City Municipal council, Chitradurga, it is taken up for final disposal and after hearing the Counsel for the parties it is disposed of by the following order. ( 2 ) AT the outset I may mention that rule was issued in this case on 29-6-1989 and eviction of petitioner was stayed if the eviction was not in accordance with the Karnataka Eviction of Unauthorised occupants from Public Premises Act. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows: the petitioner became the licencee or lessee of the respondent in respect of premises owned by the Municipal Council since 11-6-1964 paying a monthly rent of Rs. 405/- for the first five years. After the period of lease, the lease was further renewed from 1974-1984 and the said renewal was sanctioned by the State Government in accordance with Section 72 of the Karnataka municipalities Act fixing the monthly rent of rs. 1,000/- per month. That renewal period of lease or licence came to an end on 30-6-1984. Petitioner applied for further renewal. That request of renewal was granted subject to the condition that the monthly rent would be raised to rs. 3,000/- and the period of renewal would be for a period of five years and whatever improvements and water facilities that had been effected by the petitioner in respect of which expenses had been claimed by him to be reimbursed by the Town Municipal Council should be given up by the petitioner and the lessee or licencee himself should bear the expenditure in regard to whitewashing, colour-washing and other maintenance work to the premises and after the period of renewal, the premises should be handed to the municipal Council in the same condition in which it was given at the time of the renewal. The sanetion for renewal for a period of five years from 30-6-1984 was resolved unanimously by the Town municipal Council in Sub. No. 17 at its meeting held on 23-7-1984. The petitioner apparently continued to be the lessee in terms of the resolution dated 23-7-1984. The sanetion for renewal for a period of five years from 30-6-1984 was resolved unanimously by the Town municipal Council in Sub. No. 17 at its meeting held on 23-7-1984. The petitioner apparently continued to be the lessee in terms of the resolution dated 23-7-1984. True copy of the resolution is at Annexurc-A. ( 4 ) BY notice dated 13-4-1989 the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council informed that the lease was coming into an end on the expiry of 30th June, 1989 and therefore the building in question in which the petitioner was running krishna Vilas Tourist Hotel should be vacated and possession should be given to the Municipal council. The true copy of the notice is at Annexure-B. In response to the same the petitioner by his letter dated 25-4-1989 asked for further renewal stating that he had spent considerable amount of money for improvement of the building and that he was prepared to pay enhanced rent if necessary. However, by another notice dated 19-5-1989 the Commissioner offered to renew the lease for a further period of five years if the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month as rent. That is evidenced by Annexure-D which is a photostat copy of the letter of the Commissioner. In response to that, the petitioner requested that the rent may be increased by 10 to 15 per cent over the current rent in view of the heavy expenditure incurred by him as evidenced his letter dated 20-5-1989 as at Annexure-E. thereafterwards, he addressed a letter to the Administrator dated 9-6-1989 by which he agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month and awaited the willingness of the Municipal Council if that offer was acceptable to it. By his letter dated 24-6-1989 he agreed to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month as stated by the Administrator of the City Town Municipal council. However, despite the correspondence mentioned above the Town Municipal Council decided to auction the lease or licence of the premises in question in public as announced in local newspaper 'brahmagiri' on 27th June, 1989 as evidence by Annexure-L which is a photostat copy of the relevant section of the newspaper. However, despite the correspondence mentioned above the Town Municipal Council decided to auction the lease or licence of the premises in question in public as announced in local newspaper 'brahmagiri' on 27th June, 1989 as evidence by Annexure-L which is a photostat copy of the relevant section of the newspaper. Aggrieved by that notification the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the following reliefs: (I) to quash the tender notification as at annexure-L by issue of a certiorari; (ii) and further issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent-City municipal Council to renew the licence for a further period of 5 years as per the offer made by the municipal Council which had come to be accepted by the petitioner by his letter dated 24-6-1989; (III) also restrain the Municipal Commissioner from interfering with his peaceful possession of the premises in question; and (iv) for issue of a licence to run the tourist hotel inter alia on the ground that there is a concluded contract and the municipal Council must be prevented from auctioning the premises in question in public and as such the notification is without the authority of law. ( 5 ) 1 do not think that this Court should entertain this petition for the reasons I will give hereafter and give the reliefs prayed for. ( 6 ) THE last of the reliefs viz. , the question of issuance of licence is unconnected with the alleged contract created by the correspondence to which reference is made and totally unconnected with the notification informing the public of the auction of the lease hold rights of the premises as at Annexure-L and therefore that relief cannot be granted in this writ petition. If the petitioner had filed a separate petition and prayed an order that would be a different matter with which this Court is not concerned in this writ petition. ( 7 ) IN so far as the first prayer is concern edit is difficult to accede the contention of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the City Municipal council is the owner of the property, that the earlier lease or licence period has come to an end is not in doubt or dispute. It is admitted on both sides as the correspondence itself indicates. Undisputedly, the City Municipal council is the owner of the property, that the earlier lease or licence period has come to an end is not in doubt or dispute. It is admitted on both sides as the correspondence itself indicates. Therefore, as a landlord, the Municipal council has the right to auction its leasehold in accordance with law subject to the provisions of the relevant law viz. , the Karnataka Town municipalities Act. Therefore this Court ought not to quash the notification merely because the city Municipal Council decides to dispose of its property in a particular manner. It has acquired a right to dispose of such property by virtue of the earlier lease or licence having come to an end. ( 8 ) IN so far as second prayer for a mandamus to renew the lease on the terms agreed to in accordance with the correspondence at Annexures-E and G, Article 226 may not be pressed into service by the writ petitioner. He contends that a contract is complete and it is between the petitioner on the one side and the Municipal council on the other side. The proper forum left to the petitioner is to agitate in a competent civil Court and not in proceedings under Article 226. Therefore, the second prayer also may not be granted by this Court. ( 9 ) IN this writ petition the only proper course left open lor this Court is to allow the Municipal council to go ahead with its proposed auction subject to the rights of the petitioner which he must agitate in a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Whether the petitioner has a right to continue or not is a matter on which this Court will not express any opinion in this proceeding but, it is understood that even if he is treated as trespasser he must be evicted only by a procedure known to law and not otherwise. ( 10 ) WITH these observations writ petition is rejected. --- *** --- .