Madras High Court
S.Theiventhiran vs The Manapparai Municipality on 20 February, 2020
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P(MD)NOs.1615,1617, 1620, 1624, 1634, 1636, 1637,
1638 to 1643 OF 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1332 to 1334, 1338,1348,1350 to 1353,
1355, 1356, 1358 and 1359 of 2020
and
W.P(MD)Nos.1693 to 1718,1721, 1729, 1733, and 1737 of
2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1431, 1433, 1434 to 1441, 1443 to 1452,
1454 to 1460, 1467, 1469, 1470 of 2020
and
W.P(MD)Nos.2264 to 2287 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1915, 1917, 1918 to 1940 of 2020
and
W.P(MD)Nos.3229,3235, 3238 and 3239 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.2740, 2742, 2743,2744 of 2020
and
W.P(MD)Nos.3333 and 3334 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.2792 and 2794 of 2020
S.Theiventhiran :Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.1615 of 2020
.vs.
The Manapparai Municipality,
through its Commissioner,
Manapparai,
Trichy : Respondent in W.P(MD)No.1615 of 2020
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.1615 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue
a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned demand
notice of the respondent dated 9.1.2020 in respect of Assessment
No.085/2003100, Shop No.12 and to quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner :Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
W.P(MD)No.1615/2020
For Respondent :Mr.J.Lawrence
in W.P(MD)No.1615/2020 Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
******************** The Petitioners in all these batch of Writ Petitions are all lessees or licensees of the respondent/Municipality. The shop was taken by them on rent in the year 1994 and subsequently in the public auction. Thereafter, it is periodically renewed. While so, G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 3.7.2007 was issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department for renewal and enhancement of rent and also for demanding additional deposit. As per the said Government Order, the renewal can happen once in three years enhancing the rent by 15% each time and after the end of nine years period, the rent has to be revised, based on the market value then prevailing. In the event of licensees/lessees are not accepting the said rent, it was open to the Municipality to bring the property under public auction. The validity of the said 2/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Government Order was challenged and the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15392 of 2000 upheld the same. In all the present Writ Petitions, the lease was periodically renewed and on 23.11.2016, there was a demand notice from the respondent for the period from April 2016 to October 2016 at the rate of Rs.673/-p.m. The Petitioners also seem to have paid the arrears in compliance of the same. Then there was yet another notice from the respondent, dated 9.2.2019 demanding rent from April 2018 to March 2019. The said arrears was also paid by the Petitioners. Thereafter, the Petitioners alleged that they could not pay the rent as the respondent was evading receipt of the same. While so, the impugned demand notice is issued by the respondent, dated 9.1.2020. In the impugned demand notice, there is a steep hike of enhancement of rent for more than 350%. However, the rent that was actually enhanced was also claimed retrospectively. The said demand notices are now challenged by the Petitioners contending that they are legally and factually un-sustainable, as they suffer from arbitrariness and are in total violation of principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the Petitioners are remitting their rent as per the old rate upto date and as on date, there was no arrears of rent, but for the impugned notice.
3/9 http://www.judis.nic.in
2.The respondent had also filed a counter stating that the Petitioners and other allottees were duly informed orally by the Revenue Officials of the respondent that the rent would be revised after formation of the Rent Fixation Committee and after obtaining report from the said Committee and till such time, they were instructed to pay the rent prior to 2016. It is stated that, the said information was orally given to them after expiry of the lease period, dated 30.6.2016. Thereafter, the Rent Fixation Committee including the Regional Managing Director, Corporation of Thanjavur fixed the rent after considering all the relevant factors including the guidelines value etc., as per law.
3.As admittedly all the Petitioners are engaged in commercial activities, considering the said fact also, the rent was enhanced by the Rent Fixation Committee. The respondent had also produced the Rent Calculation Sheet to show that how the rents were arrived at. Admittedly, while fixing the rent, no notice was issued to the stake-holders namely, the Petitioners and their objections were not heard and the rent was fixed unilaterally by the Rent Fixation Committee.
4.The question that has to be determined in these Writ 4/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Petitions is whether the impugned notices have to be set aside?
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would contend that the impugned notices have to go on the following grounds:
(1)the impugned notice demanding revised rate of rent retrospectively for the period from July 2016 till March 2020 itself is un-sustainable, as there cannot be any retrospective fixation of rent;
(2)Admittedly, the rent at the old rate have been paid by the Petitioners upto date. Even though the respondent had decided to enhance the rent from July 2016, the said factor was not made known to the Petitioners when the respondent issued notice on 23.11.2016 and the final notice for payment of rent. Not only that, even in the notice, dated 9.2.2019 demanding the rent upto March 2019 also the respondent has demanded the rent only in the old rate and there is not even a statement in the said notice that the respondent is working on the revision of the rent as per the proceedings of the Commissioner. Therefore, in the absence of any communication about the enhancement of rent, it is not open to the 5/9 http://www.judis.nic.in respondent to demand the same and recover it retrospectively;
(3)the new enhanced rent may be fixed only for the future, that too, only after fixing the same adopting proper procedure. In this case, the Petitioners were admittedly not given the opportunity to put-forth their objections or views before the enhanced rent was fixed.
6.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent could not countenance the above objections, as the demands made on 23.11.2016 as well as on 9.2.2019 did not mention about the revision of the rent by the Rent Fixation Committee. That apart, the Rent Fixation Committee had not invited any objections from the Petitioners, who are the stake-holders in the process. Therefore the demand notice issued by the respondent in all these Writ Petitions have to be set aside. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court passes the following Order:
(a)the demand notices which is the subject-matter in all these Writ Petitions stand set aside;
(b)the respondent is directed to issue notice to the 6/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Petitioners after fixing a date for enquiry to submit their explanations/objections;
(c)an opportunity of personal hearing may be given to all the Petitioners or collectively to the representatives of the Petitioners before fixing the enhanced rent;
(d)the respondents are also directed to fix the rent adopting any method known to law;
(e)It is open to the Petitioners to agitate whether the enhanced rent that may be fixed is to be paid retrospectively or will take effect from the date of demand notice, which is impugned in these Writ Petitions;
(f)once the rent is fixed, the Petitioners have to pay it accordingly;
(g)the Rent Fixation Committee may consider the representation of those Petitioners who are not in arrears of even the admitted rent amount;
7.With the above directions, the impugned notices in all these 7/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Writ Petitions are set aside and the Writ Petitions stand allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Rent Fixation Committee for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to complete the above said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsn To The Commissioner, Manapparai Municipality, Manapparai, Trichy.
8/9 http://www.judis.nic.in PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
vsn COMMON 0RDER MADE IN W.P(MD)NOs.1615,1617, 1620, 1624, 1634, 1636, 1637, 1638 to 1643 OF 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1332 to 1334, 1338,1348,1350 to 1353, 1355, 1356, 1358 and 1359 of 2020 and W.P(MD)Nos.1693 to 1718,1721, 1729, 1733, and 1737 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1431, 1433, 1434 to 1441, 1443 to 1452, 1454 to 1460, 1467, 1469, 1470 of 2020 and W.P(MD)Nos.2264 to 2287 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1915, 1917, 1918 to 1940 of 2020 and W.P(MD)Nos.3229,3235, 3238 and 3239 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2740, 2742, 2743,2744 of 2020 and W.P(MD)Nos.3333 and 3334 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2792 and 2794 of 2020 20.02.2020 9/9 http://www.judis.nic.in