Madras High Court
P.Sivaraj vs The Rasipuram Municipal Council on 17 February, 2020
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.Nos.SR14622, 14594, 14598, 14602, 14606, 14638, 14642,
14630, 14634, 14626, 14610, 14614 and 14618 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.21643, 21683, 21696, 21690, 21682, 21679, 21674,
21658, 21821, 21644, 21652, 21823, 21721 of 2019
W.A.SR.No.14622 of 2019:
P.Sivaraj .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Rasipuram Municipal Council
Rasipuram Municipality
Namakkal District.
2. The Commissioner
Rasipuram Municipality
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
and batch cases.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas
for 2nd respondent
in all appeals
__________
Page 1 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) This batch of writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 7.12.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions that were filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the action of the respondents, the Rasipuram Municipal Council, Namakkal District, enhancing the lease rent of the shops occupied by the appellants. These shops owned by the Rasipuram Municipality are located in and around the Old Bus-stand, New Bus- stand and the Daily Market of the said Municipality.
2. The enhancement has been brought about keeping in view the principles contained in the Government Order, viz. G.O. Ms. No.92, dated 3.7.2007, and the letter that followed thereafter on 12.3.2009. The notice to enhance the rent was issued on 20.2.2017 that has resulted in the final demand from the appellants through the notice dated 31.5.2017 and further proposing tender auction of the shops vide advertisement dated 23-6-2017. It is this __________ Page 2 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc. public auction which came to be challenged praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said proceedings and to restore the rate of rent that was realized from the appellants at the rate of 15% increase only.
3. The complaint was that the rent has been increased manifold and is exorbitant that too, without notice and without assessing the market value of the area. The contention is that the provisions of the Government Order cannot be invoked and such procedure undertaken being without authority in law, the enhancement should be set aside.
4. Before the learned Single Judge a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Municipal Council and the method by which the exercise was undertaken to enhance the rent was set out in detail from paragraphs 3 to 16 of the counter-affidavit. __________ Page 3 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc.
5. The learned Single Judge, after having noticed the facts, applied the law as laid down in the case of P.V. Subramanian v. Secretary to Government, 2014 (5) MLJ 129 to support the enhancement on the ground that the object of letting out the shops is to augment revenue of the Municipality which can be revised on the prevailing market value of the area. The learned Single Judge also explained about the reduction in the guideline value and the reasons therefore which did not enure to the benefit of the appellants. The learned Single Judge, therefore, left it open to the appellants/petitioners either to give consent to the enhanced rent sought to be realised from them or to vacate the shops as per the notification published. The learned Single Judge also protected the interest of the Municipal Council to have recourse to forcible possession in case the shops are not vacated.
6. We have perused the counter affidavit that was filed before the learned Single Judge which also indicates that out of 207 shops of the Municipality, 160 lessees have already agreed for enhancement and renewal of their leases on the revised rent. It is __________ Page 4 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc. only about 50 of the shop-owners who came to this Court and challenged the enhancement. After tenders were issued, another 10 shop-owners also expressed their consent for the enhanced rent. It is in this background that the writ petitions were closed with the directions given by the learned Single Judge.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the rate of enhancement is very high and without notice to the appellants and not taking into account the market value and, therefore, interference is called for.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Municipal Council, we agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the appellants have no right in their favour crystallized so as to claim a compulsory continuance of the tenancy/lease of the said shops. The lease/tenancy is well-defined and if the appellants are aggrieved by enhancement of rent, it is open to them to exercise their option as per the lease/tenancy agreement itself. This Court cannot confer __________ Page 5 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc. any better right on them other than what was agreed to between the parties and which is permissible under law. Nothing has been shown to us that may prevent the Municipal Council from undertaking the exercise of enhancement of rent which had to be revisited as per the Government Order referred to herein above. The revisit has been made under a Rent Fixation Committee that had issued notice on 20.2.2017 against which various objections had been filed by several of the shop-owners. The Rent Fixation Committee thereafter arrived at a conclusion and standardised the rent according to the market value of the area in which the shops are located, as detailed in the counter-affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the relevant paragraphs 3 to 16 of the counter-affidavit referred to above, we find that the entire exercise has been done after due notice and after taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the market rental value of the area whereafter the rents have been refixed. Thus, neither any fundamental right nor any legal right of the appellants has been violated. The appellants cannot claim immunity from enhancement of the rent and as indicated above, about two-thirds of the shop- __________ Page 6 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc. owners have already accepted the enhancement and, having agreed to pay the same, have also started making payments. There is, therefore, no reason to differentiate the case of the appellants in the absence of any legal right to prevent such enhancement on the terms and conditions upon which the shops have been leased out to the appellants.
9. Considering the same issue relating to Villupuram Municipal Corporation, another Division Bench has taken the same view in the case of Abdul Samad v. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, decided on 19.06.2018, in W.A. No.1041 of 2018. The said view has also been expressed by another Division Bench in S.K. Subbiah v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk and others, in W.A. No.545 of 2018, decided on 14.3.2018.
10. For all the reasons aforesaid, we see no error so as to warrant interference with the impugned judgment dated 7.12.2017 of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. __________ Page 7 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.P., J.)
17.02.2020
Index : Yes
sasi
__________
Page 8 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.Nos.SR14622 of 2018, etc.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
(sasi)
W.A.Nos.SR14622, 14594, 14598, 14602, 14606, 14638, 14642, 14630, 14634, 14626, 14610, 14614 and 14618 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.21643, 21683, 21696, 21690, 21682, 21679, 21674, 21658, 21821, 21644, 21652, 21823, 21721 of 2019 17.02.2020 __________ Page 9 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in