Madras High Court
P.Chandraadithya vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 July, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.Nos.15832, 15456, 13719, 13712, 13707, 13720, 13725, 13743,
12155, 12158, 12548, 12538, 12152, 13697, 15459, 12162, 12168, 13691,
13683, 13736, 13739, 12547, 15504, 15703, 15820, 15824, 15829, 15833,
15837, 15938, 15948, 15953, 15957, 15942, 15943, 15949, 15952, 15956,
15958, 16073, 16077, 16081, 16087, 16089, 16084, 16085, 16096, 16098,
16086, 16094, 16105, 16123, 16107, 16110, 16118, 16319, 16372, 16617,
16632, 16633, 16634, 17006, 17022, 17017, 17012, 17025, 17031, 17034,
17036, 17043, 17039, 17059, 17070, 17065, 17091, 17118, 17131, 17125,
17127 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.13004, 13005, 13007, 13021, 12983, 12972, 12968, 12946,
13026, 13030, 13032, 13040, 13041, 13042, 11601, 11592, 11598, 11597,
11620, 11608, 11606, 12017, 12016, 12014, 12012, 12005, 14610, 14616,
13002, 13000, 12996, 12994, 12986, 11613, 12957, 12950, 13025, 11619,
11617, 11614, 11612, 11611, 12961, 11600, 12015, 12011, 14615, 13027,
14713, 14710, 14607, 11595, 13033, 13023, 13024, 12000, 11999, 14673,
14674, 14675, 14690, 14950, 14953, 15126, 15127, 15128, 15129, 15133,
15137, 15138, 15141, 15111, 15112, 15114, 15118, 15119, 15120, 15124,
15132, 15136, 15226, 15240, 15241, 15243, 15244, 15255, 15258, 15251,
15261, 15252, 15237, 15245, 15263, 15269, 15270, 15268, 15249, 15260,
15265, 15266, 15267, 15271, 15248, 15262, 15272, 15273, 15247, 15253,
15254, 15256, 15259, 15408, 15409, 15397, 15398, 15400, 15407, 15418,
15416, 15417, 15426, 15431, 15433, 15428, 15439, 15427, 15436, 15438,
15434, 15422, 15460, 15462, 15429, 15451, 15454, 15456, 15458, 15423,
15424, 15430, 15448, 15449, 15455, 15432, 16123, 15471, 15482, 15476,
15494, 15495, 15500, 15478, 15498, 15469, 15472, 15475, 15484, 15485,
15493, 15497, 15649, 15650, 15651, 15683, 15684, 15685, 15924, 15925,
15922, 15923, 15918, 15919, 15910, 15912, 15914, 15917, 15920, 15921,
16300, 16309, 16310, 16311, 16314, 16318, 16307, 16295, 16296, 16304,
16306, 16317, 16331, 16333, 16335, 16336, 16339, 16342, 16343, 16353,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 17
W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
16323, 16329, 16330, 16321, 16322, 16350, 16352, 16341, 16344, 16346,
16374, 16365, 16370, 16371, 16372, 16373, 16375, 16362, 16363, 16388,
16387, 16389, 16433, 16434, 16435, 16436, 16437, 16438, 16439, 16421,
16423, 16431, 16424, 16440 of 2022
W.P.No. 15832 of 2022:
P.ChandraAdithya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Regional Director,
Municipal Administration,
Chengalpet.
3. Tambaram Corporation,
Represented by its Commissioner,
No.28, MuthuRanga Mudali Street,
Tambaram West,
Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
second respondent Committee order fixing the lease value as Rs.40/- per sq.ft
of the Petitioner's Plot in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3622/2017/A2 dated
28.10.2021 and the consequential demand order of the third respondent
fixing the lease value of Rs.40/- per sq.ft vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.4662/2016/A1 dated 29.11.2021 and demand notice
Na.Ka.No.4662/2016/A1 dated and demand notice Na.Ka.No.4662/2016/A1
dated 18.04.2022 and to quash the same and further direct the Respondents
to consider the Petitioner's case both sympathetically and legally and fix the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 2 of 17
W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
fair lease amount for the vacant land occupied by the Petitioner in Big Plot
No.4-B measuring 384 sq.ft. in Duraiswami Reddiyar Market, Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045.
For Petitioner : M/s.Gnanadesikan Law Associates
For Respondents :
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.P.Srinivas
Standing Counsel
ORDER
By this common order all these writ petitions are being disposed of.
2. The dispute pertains to Duraiswami Reddiyar Market in Tambaram Corporation earlier Tambaram Municipality. The respective petitioners are holding lands under their control and have put up shops in Duraiswami Reddiyar Market in different sq.ft. Each of these petitioners have been paying very low rent to the respondent Tambaram Municipality and there was no revision of rent for about seven decades.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
3. It appears that many of the petitioners were not the original lessees of the respondent municipality. In 2017, the rent payable by the petitioners was re-fixed in terms of a Committee Report dated 06.11.2017 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3622/2017/A2. The rent that was fixed by the Committee was at Rs.20 per Sq.ft.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.21305, 21306, 21307, 21308, 21309, 21310, 21376, 21377, 21378, 21379, 21380, 21381, 21525, 28259 of 2018 and 7521, 7528 and 7604 of 2019 which came to be disposed by a common order dated 22.04.2019 with the following observations:
“7. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both side, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
(i) The impugned demand notice in
Na.Ka.No.4662/2016/A1 dated 10.11.2017 and
27.4.2018 and the final demand notice, dated 18.5.2018 issued by the respondent Municipality are quashed.
(ii) The Regional Director is directed to constitute a Committee headed by the Regional Director and the other members, namely Regional Executive Engineer, Municipal Administration, the Commissioner, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch Tambaram Municipality, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, to assess the report submitted by the Committee and the relevant materials for fixing the rental value for the petitioners' shop with effect from 1.4.2017.
(iii) The petitioner has agreed to pay the difference of revised lease amount at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. from 1.4.2017 till the final order passed by the respondent Corporation.
(iv) The writ petitioners shall pay arrears of the difference of revised lease amount as stated supra, in two instalments, namely, 50% of the difference of the revised lease amount for the aforesaid period shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the remaining 50% shall be paid by the petitioners within a period of six weeks thereafter.
(v) In default, it is open to the respondent Municipality to proceed in accordance with law.
(vi) The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality shall submit a report along with the guideline value of the registration department and any other materials, before the Committee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(vii) On receipt of such report, the Committee shall consider the same and fix the revised lease amount for the petitioners' land within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the report.
(viii) Thereafter, the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality shall communicate to the petitioner individually for demanding payment of revised lease ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch amount for the petitioners' shops.”
5. Pursuant to the above mentioned order, a committee was constituted consisting Regional Director, Regional Executive Engineer and Member, Municipality Commissioner and Member and Revenue Officer and Member. As per the report submitted by the afore said Committee, the rent payable by the petitioners has been now fixed at Rs.40/-, pursuant to which the respective petitioners have received the impugned demand notices. It is the re- fixation of the rent by the third respondent at Rs.40/- which is challenged and is the subject matter of these writ petitions.
6. The writ petitions are contested by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the fixation of rent is arbitrary and contrary to the directions of the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.21305, 21306, 21307, 21308, 21309, 21310, 21376, 21377, 21378, 21379, 21380, 21381, 21525, 28259 of 2018 and 7521, 7528 and 7604 of 2019.
7. That apart, it is submitted that the respondents have demanded arrears of rent at Rs.40 per Sq.ft, even though, the earlier rent that was fixed ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch which was a subject matter of earlier writ petition was only at Rs.20 per Sq.ft.
8. It is further submitted that even though there were guidelines, the method adopted for fixation of rent is under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was not followed. Therefore, the impugned demand notice are sought to be assailed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. M.K.M.Geeyauvdeen Vs. The Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality, 2008 (2) LW 219; ii. R.Umayaraj Vs. The Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, W.P.No.22040 of 2016 and etc., batch;
iii. L.Rajesh and Others, Vs. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai and Others, CDJ 2018 MHC 5477;
iv. Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor and Others, Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others, 1980 (1) SCC 685;
v. The Guntur Municipal Council Vs. The Guntur Town Rate Paters Association, 1970 (2) SCC 803;
10. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch submits that the petitioners are not the original lessee and that many of the petitioners are subsequent occupants who have occupied the premises without any lease arrangements from the respondent municipality.
11. It is further submitted that almost for seven decades, the rent was not re-fixed and the rent that was being paid by each of the petitioners was at Rs.0.35 per Sq.ft did not commensurate with the rent that is payable for the property.
12. It is further submitted that the rent that was being paid by the petitioner is not inconsonance with G.O.(Ms).No.92, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007.
13. It is further submitted that as per the afore said Government Order, at the end of three years period, rent has to be revised and there should be an increase of rent by 15%.
14. It is further submitted that the revised rent that has been demanded ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch was after due consideration of all factors and after getting inputs of the Executive Engineer of PWD who is an expert in this subject and therefore there is no infirmity in the demand that was made in the impugned demand notices and the rent fixed by the committee constituted, pursuant to the directions of this Court vide its proceedings dated 28.10.2021.
15. It is further submitted that the revised rent that was fixed at Rs.40/- was after due notice to the petitioners and therefore, there is no infirmity in the determination of the rent.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submits that the present writ petitions are devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
18. The facts on record seem indicate that a Town Planning Scheme ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch was formulated in Tambaram in the year 1938 and that in the year 1947, the District Board divided one acre of land where these shops are situated, where the petitioners are having their shops in 172 plots measuring 170 Sq.ft. and 6 big plots measuring 1000 Sq.ft. to 2000 Sq.ft. Many of the petitioners predecessors appear to have been allotted land in the year 1947 when the land belonged to the Government. In all these lands, the petitioners and their predecessors were allowed to put up their own construction. The property tax on the superstructure put by the petitioner and their predecessors were also collected from them.
19. In G.O.(Ms).No.819, Revenue Department Government of Tamil Nadu dated 02.04.1980, the Government of Tamil Nadu sold the above land where Duraiswami Reddiyar Market situated by collecting land value at Rs.2500 per cent.
20. In the said, Government Order three options were given. Tambaram Municipality expressed its willingness to take over the land with the existing encroachment/encroachers. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 10 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
21. The fact on record also indicate that the rent that were being made by the petitioners or their predecessors has not been revised for about seven decades and the rent that were being paid were very low.
22. For instance, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15832 of 2022 was paying an annual rent of Rs.6010/- for holding a plot measuring 384 Sq.ft. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.16081 of 2022 who was possessing 1700 Sq.ft was paying an annual rent of Rs.14,293/-. The status of rent being paid by each of the petitioners are also not different in proportion with the extent of land under their control.
23. The determination of rent in the year 2017 which was set aside by this Court, fixing rent at Rs.20 per Sq.ft was also based on the PWD (Public Works Department) calculations as is evident from reading of paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of the second respondent in W.P.No.21376 to 21381 of 2018 which came to be disposed by this Court vide common order dated 22.04.2019. The Relevant portion from the Counter Affidavit reads as under:
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 11 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch “8. The said committee took up the process of refixation of the rents for the respective Municipal areas and collected the relevant details such as the Value of the lands in the concerned area of the ships, value of the rents fetched by the private shops in the same areas and finally the value of the Monthly rents as fixed by the Public Works Department for the concerned area annually.”
24. Curiously, the re-determination of rent by the respondents, pursuant to the directions of this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions vide order dated 22.04.2019 has re-fixed rent at Rs.40 per Sq.ft.
25. It is being justified by the respondents by stating that the rent has been fixed by the Public Works Department taking into consideration of all the relevant factors. In these writ petitions, the respondent has stated that the committee took up the process of re-fixation of the rents for the respective municipal areas and collected relevant materials such as value of the lands concerned as per Registration Department, value of the rents paid by the private shops and the rents fixed by the Public Works Department in the concerned area and that the committee decided to adopt the value of the property as per the value given by the Registration Department.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 12 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
26. Though, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the third respondent filed a copy of a communication dated 21.09.2020 bearing reference foj vz;/tgp ,eptm2-nfh/(5)/2020 and stated that the rent has been fixed based on the Public Works Department Value, it is noticed that the petitioners were better-off without filing the earlier writ petition which came to be disposed vide order dated 22.04.2019.
27. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if G.O.(Ms).No.92 dated Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 was applied, the petitioner would have been liable to pay enhanced rent of 15% at the end of three years, from 2017. The previous fixation of the fair rent which was fixed with effect between 01.04.2017 and 31.03.2020 was scientific and objective. The petitioners should pay the same.
28. I am therefore inclined to conclude that the rent that was fixed for the period starting from 01.04.2020 is to be upheld and should be applied as the base rent for re-fixation of the fair rent for the succeeding period between 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipality ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 13 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007. The fair rent should be enhanced to Rs.23 per Sq.ft. inconsonance with the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 at the end of three years.
29. Going forward, the petitioners shall start paying rent as Rs.23 per Sq.ft. from 01.04.2020 upto 31.03.2023 by including 15% enhancement.
30. Considering the fact that the petitioners may not be in a position to pay the arrears at Rs.20/- per sq.ft. from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020 and Rs.23/- per Sq.ft. from 01.04.2020 till July 2022, the respondents are directed to calculate the same and treat it as interest free loan to the petitioners to be paid by the petitioners towards arrears in good time by amortizing it into the future rents.
31. The third respondent shall issue appropriate demand notice in proportion of the land under their occupation by amortizing the arrears into the current rent and demand the same over a period of 12 months or more. The respondent shall also extend the concessions/benefit of G.O.Ms.No.298, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 14 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch for a period of two months to the petitioners and other tenant .
32. It is also made clear that the next revision of fair rent shall be in the year 2023 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department . The writ petition stands disposed in terms of the above observations. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.07.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order rgm To ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 15 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch
1. The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Department, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Chengalpet.
3. The Commissioner, Tambaram Corporation, No.28, MuthuRanga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai – 600 045.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 16 of 17 W.P.No.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch rgm W.P.Nos.15832 of 2022 and etc., batch and W.M.P.Nos.13004 of 2022 and etc, batch 21.07.2022 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 17 of 17