Judgment :- 1. Inspite of Court notice having been served on the respondents 3 and 4, and their names having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to carry on her business, in the premises in question, which she had taken on lease, from the first respondent herein, as per the agreement, dated 19.5.2000, as a franchisee, to sell vegetables and fruits. However, the respondents had prevented the petitioner from carrying on her business, on the allegations that she was selling certain other items, like cool drinks, beedi, beeda, magazines, snacks and other groceries. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.492 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem, and had obtained an order of interim injunction, on 11.11.2011 in I.A.No.920 of 2011, in O.S.No.492 of 2011. Inspite of obtaining an interim order, the third respondent had locked the premises in question, preventing the petitioner from carrying on her business. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the first and the second respondents had not cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, till date. However, she is not in a position to carry on her business due to the locking of the premises, by the authorities of the third respondent Corporation. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that, the petitioner may be directed to give an undertaking, before the second respondent, stating that she would not sell any other products, except vegetables and fruits, as per the lease agreement, dated 19.5.2000. On such undertaking being given, the third respondent Corporation may be directed to remove the lock and to permit the petitioner to carry on the business. 5. On such undertaking being given, the third respondent Corporation may be directed to remove the lock and to permit the petitioner to carry on the business. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 had further submitted that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner shall be cancelled, if the petitioner is found to be selling any other products, except the authorised fruits and vegetables. However, he had admitted that no notice had been issued to the petitioner for the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, till date. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to run the business, in selling vegetables and fruits, as per the agreement, dated 19.5.2000. The petitioner shall run the business, after obtaining the necessary licence, from the third respondent Corporation, as per the procedures established by law, for running the business. However, if the petitioner is found to be selling any other products, except the vegetables and fruits authorised by the second respondent, it would be open to the first respondent to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with the procedures established by law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.