ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the resolution passed by the respondent Municipality in their meeting held on 28.3.2008 in resolution .No.12/2007-2008 insofar as it relates to item No.2, Serial No.5 regarding the lease right for Yathri Nivas as well as canteen and to set aside the same and for a direction to the municipality to renew the lease of Yathri Nivas and canteen situated at Hospital Road, Kancheepuram for a further period of three years in terms of the decision of the municipality which was recorded by this court in W.P.No.5514 of 2008, dated 4.3.2008. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 09.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on the basis of the existence of G.O.Ms.No.92, MA&WS Department, dated 3.7.2007. The said interim order was directed to continue until further order by a further order dated 20.11.2008. On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 09.01.2012. 3. It is seen from the records that the municipal council by its resolution No.554, dated 28.12.2007 had resolved to grant public auction in respect of 23 items as per the auction notice for a period of one year from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. In that auction notice, item No.22 related to the grant of lease for collection of rent from the occupants of the room and running of canteen at Yathri Nivas at Hospital Road. There were also several other items in the said notice regarding municipal properties. As there was no bidder in the original auction, re-auction was ordered by the municipal council in respect of the issue in question as well as three other items. The said resolution came to be challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, the re-auction could not be possible. 4. The Municipality had constructed the Yathri Nivas with boarding and lodging facilities for the welfare of the tourist visiting the city. The rooms were furnished with all facilities. The canteen attached to the Yathri Nivas caters to the need of tourists and the general public. In view of the shortage of staff and practical difficulty in running day to-day administration, the municipal council had decided to outsource the collection of room rent and running of canteen by public auction. The rooms were furnished with all facilities. The canteen attached to the Yathri Nivas caters to the need of tourists and the general public. In view of the shortage of staff and practical difficulty in running day to-day administration, the municipal council had decided to outsource the collection of room rent and running of canteen by public auction. The petitioner's lease was granted only from 27.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 pursuant to the auction held on 27.6.2007 accepting his bid amount of Rs.2,23,200/-. The petitioner after availing the lease, on 03.12.2007 sent a representation seeking for renewal of lease for three years by referring to G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 3.7.2007. This was not accepted by the municipal council stating that the said G.O will not apply to the lease granted on yearly basis. The petitioner by getting the stay order has been sending representations for renewal of lease on annual basis by increasing the lease amount with a meager amount. The petitioner is liable to pay the lease amount for the years 2007-2008, 2009-2010, 2010-2011. He had paid only Rs.1,48,000/- leaving the balance of Rs.8,06,646/- apart from the lease amount for the year 2011-2012. Without paying any amount to the municipality, he has been running the Yathri Nivas and canteen and has been earning huge profit. 5. The attempt of the petitioner making use of the interim order and by not making any amount including the admitted amount clearly shows the highhandedness on the part of the petitioner. Further, reliance placed upon the G.O.Ms.N.92 has no relevance. There is no automatic renewal of lease for items which are to be brought under annual lease category. Even for the application of G.O.Ms.No.92, it requires the council approval. 6. The Supreme Court vide its decision in BareillyDevelopment Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 dealt with the scope of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in enforcing the terms of contract which are purely contractual. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the judgment and it reads as follows: "21.This finding, in our view, is not correct in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case because in RamanaDayaram Shetty case there was no concluded contract as in this case. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the judgment and it reads as follows: "21.This finding, in our view, is not correct in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case because in RamanaDayaram Shetty case there was no concluded contract as in this case. Even conceding that the BDA has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in “other authority” for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the “authority” or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive capacity. Thereafter the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (i.e. BDA in this case) in the said contractual field. 22. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple — Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority and DFO v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. 23.In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly instalments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for". 7. 7. The said judgment came to be quoted and followed in a decision of this Court in a case involving a license granted to collect fees for maintaining a public toilet of the municipality. This Court held that the right granted is a license and not a lease and it was further held that such condition cannot be enforced in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said was decision reported in 1990 Writ L.R 105 (Pandara Pandian Vs. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipality). M.Srinivasan,J (as he then was) in Paragraphs 3 and 4 had observed as follows: "3. By the very nature of the property involved being a lavatory, there cannot be a lease as such in favour of the petitioner. The conditions of the auction under which the petitioner became highest bidder in 1989 as well as the form of licence agreement under Art.176 make it clear that it is only a licence for a specific period, namely from 05.06.1989 to 31.03.1990. Having agreed to these conditions and taken the licence right in the auction, it is not open to the petitioner now to raise a contention that it is a lease and that he cannot be disturbed. 4. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recently held in Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 , that non-statutory contracts cannot be enforced under Art.226 of the Constitution of India". 8. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. In the absence of any legal or enforceable right, any order passed in favour of the petitioner will be contrary to the provisions of the District Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder and also against the public interest. The writ petition is a clear abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be payable to the respondent municipality. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.