V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two Writ petitions are the lessees of Anakpalle municipality, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam district, the sole respondent herein, in relation to the shops in a complex known as high School Shop Rooms and also the shops on the main road near Municipal Play ground Complex. According to the petitioners, they were inducted as tenants in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and expenditure) Rules, 1968 ( the Rules for brevity) framed by the Government of andhra Pradesh in G. O. Ms. No. 686, municipal Administration, dated 30-7-1968. They have been the lessees for the last 15 years and they contend that their leases have been extended from time to time in accordance with the Rules. ( 2 ) THE respondent issued a special notice dated 18-10-2002 requiring the petitioners to give their willingness for renewing the leases for another period of three years from 1-10-2002 and the petitioners gave their willingness inter alia submitting that the rent being charged is already on the high side and, however, they are willing to continue as tenants on the same rent. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner of Anakapalle municipality, purporting to act in accordance with Resolution No. 236 dated 28-2-2003 passed by the Municipal Council, issued proceedings increasing the present rent by 331/3% over the existing rent. Assailing these proceedings, Writ Petition no. 7700 of 2003 is filed. ( 4 ) IN the second Writ Petition being w. P. No. 770l of 2003 filed by the lessees of the Shopping Complex near Municipal Play ground, a notice issued dated 20-3-2003 directing the petitioners to give willingness for enhancing the rent by 331/3% for the purpose of renewing the lease is challenged. However, as the contentions raised are same, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage by this common order. ( 5 ) SRI E. V. Bhagirath Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that as per the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules referred to hereinabove, the Municipality has not followed the procedure contemplated under law by issuing notices three months before the expiry of the lease that the enhancement cannot be more than 15%. The submission is devoid of any merit. The submission is devoid of any merit. Rule 12 (1) (e) stipulates that all leases of the buildings or terrace of the buildings, shops, godowns and land belonging to Municipal council shall be effected by public auction which shall be conducted by the commissioner or by a person duly authorized by him, who shall give publicity thereto in such a manner as we consider suitable. It further provides that the bids of auction shall be placed by the Commissioner before the authority competent to enter into contract under Section 43 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The second proviso to Rule 12 (1) of the Rules reads as under. "provided further that is in the case of the properties referred to in clause (e), the Municipal Council may renew the lease for a period of three years at a time and with the prior sanction of the government for a period exceeding three years and not exceeding twenty five years without "conducting public auction, if the present lessee agrees to renew the lease in his favour at an amount which will be at 331/3% above the earlier rent or the prevailing market value of such shops situated in the vicinity, whichever is higher. The Council may also in special circumstances and with the prior sanction of the Government, renew the lease at a rate not less than 15% over the existing rate of annual lease. For this purpose, the municipal council shall get the willingness of the occupying tenant within three months before the expiry of the existing lease. If a reply is not received within fifteen days from the date of receipt of intimation by the tenant the commissioner shall take steps for leasing out the same through public auction before the expiry of the existing lease. " ( 6 ) STRONG reliance is placed on the second paragraph of second proviso to Rule 12 (1) in support of the contention that when the municipal Council desires to enhance the rent by not less than 15% for the purpose of renewal, a notice asking for the willingness of the tenant within three months before the expiry of the existing lease is mandatory. Learned counsel also submits that as a notice is issued asking for willingness, there cannot be enhancement by 331/3% I am afraid, the submission is misconceived. Learned counsel also submits that as a notice is issued asking for willingness, there cannot be enhancement by 331/3% I am afraid, the submission is misconceived. The true and correct construction of the second proviso to rule 12 (1) would be that the municipal property can be leased out for a period of three years at a time. However, with the prior sanction of the Government, the lease can be extended beyond three years up to a period of 25 years without conducting public auction. In case, the lease is to be extended from time to time; three years at a time - with the prior sanction of the government, the same is subject to the condition that the present lessee agrees to renew the lease at an amount which, will be, at 331/3% above the earlier rent or the prevailing market value of such shops situated in the vicinity, whichever will be higher. This is not subject to the second limb of second para of the second proviso to rule 12 (1 ). By reason of the words used in the second part ". . . . Council may also in the special circumstances. . . . . . . ", it becomes clear that the second part is by way of an exception to the first part. The general rule is that there can be a renewal beyond three years for another term of three years unless the tenant/lessee is willing to renew the lease by enhancement of rent by 331/3% above the existing rent. Whether there are any special circumstances warranting the exercise of power by the Council? ( 7 ) THE impugned order in Writ Petition no. 7700 of 2003 refers to Resolution No. 236 dated 28-2-2003. In the proceedings, the commissioner states that as per the said resolution, the lease is extended by three years by increasing the rent by 331/3%- therefore, it becomes clear, when the matter went before the Council, it did not consider it as a special case to attract the second part of the second proviso to Rule 12 (1 ). In so far as the second Writ Petition i. e. , W. P. No. 7701 of 2003 is concerned, the same, to my mind, appears to have been issued pursuant to resolution No. 236 of the Municipal Council. In so far as the second Writ Petition i. e. , W. P. No. 7701 of 2003 is concerned, the same, to my mind, appears to have been issued pursuant to resolution No. 236 of the Municipal Council. ( 8 ) THE submission that the procedure of asking for willingness within three months is not followed is stated to be rejected. The notice in the first case shows that though the second term of new lease period is commencing on 1-10-2002, the notice was issued on 18-10-2002 asking them for willingness and no order was passed before the expiry of three months. The order/ proceedings were passed on 12-3-2003, In so far as the second Writ Petition is concerned, only notice is issued asking for the willingness of the petitioners therein and it is for them to reject the offer or accept the offer within three months. In case they fail to give their willingness for renewal of the lease by enhancing the rent by 331/3%, it is for the Municipal Council to cancel the lease and put the shops for auction in accordance with Rule 12 (e ). ( 9 ) YET another reason which cannot be ignored is that admittedly, the petitioners have been lessees for the last 15 years and no sanction of the Government as required under the second proviso to Rule 12 (1), is placed before me to justify the continuation for so long time. ( 10 ) THE Writ Petitions are misconceived and devoid of merits. They are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.