Judgment :- There is no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner became the successful bidder the auction held in 1987 and was granted a lease for a period of 3 years. He took possession of the shop on 27.2.1987. One of the specific conditions was that the lease will be operative for a period of three years from the date of taking possession. Consequently, his ended on 26.2.1990. The second respondent notified and held a fresh auction on 4.1.1990. The 4th respondent is the successful bidder in the auction held on 4.1.1990. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamns calling for the records of the second respondent notifying the auction and quashing the and directing respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue in his shop as long pays the rent regularly. 2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner is that he is entitled the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 29.4.1985. Under. the said G.O. the government provided for municipal buildings being leased out for three years and for increase of the second and third year at particular rates mentioned in the G.O. The auction in which petitioner participated and became the successful bidder in 1987 was held only in pursuance of the said G.O. The maximum period fixed by the Government Order is only three That period having come to an end, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit under the G.O. 3. The next contention is that G.O.Ms.No.285 is not valid and number of writ petitions pending in this court and also before the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the It is stated that the Supreme Court has stayed in some cases the fresh auction held municipality. I am of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the validity the G.O. after having taken p’ art in the auction which was held in pursuance of the said Having enjoyed the fruits of the lease granted in his favour pursuant to the said auction, petitioner cannot challenge the G.O. at this stage. The G.O. is challenged only by the lessees who were in possession at the time of the G.O. and the petitioner cannot himself on park with them. 4. The G.O. is challenged only by the lessees who were in possession at the time of the G.O. and the petitioner cannot himself on park with them. 4. The third contention is that the municipality cannot misuse the exemption granted government under the provisions of Sec.29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act. According to the petitioner, it is because of the exemption from the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the municipality is resorting to eviction within a short period of years as in this case. The contention cannot be accepted as there is no challenge exemption as such. So long as the exemption is in force, the municipality is certainly to impose its own terms on its lessees. Having entered into a contract with the municipality for taking the shop on lease and having enjoyed the fruits of the lease for the entire fixed in the contract, the petitioner cannot now contend that the municipality is misusing exemption granted under the Rent Control Act. 5. The next contention put forward is that-the municipality has continued the lease in respect of some other lessees, but is denying the same to the petitioner herein. There is no averment in the affidavit to that effect. However, some documents were produced before me today show that the municipality has granted such lease to some other lessee, and thus there discrimination between the petitioner and the others. No materials are placed before me show that the petitioner is in the same position as the other lessees. Therefore, I am of view that this contention also cannot be sustained. 6. In substance, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an attempt to enforce a contract lease between the petitioner and the municipality. The contract between the municipality the petitioner is a non-statutory one. The Supreme has held in Berailiy Development Authority and another v. Ajay Pal Singh and others, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1075, that a non statutory contract cannot be enforced under Art.226 of the Constitution. Hence this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.