Madras High Court
Rep. By Its President ... vs The Commissioner on 26 July, 2018
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1204 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.9700 of 2018
R.A.Puram Corporation Shopping
Complex Association (165/2017),
Rep. by its President Mr.R.Balasubramanian,
No.18/36, 3rd Cross Street,
Corporation Shopping Complex,
R.A.Puram, Chennai -18. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Park Town,
Chennai 3.
2. The Revenue Officer,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Park Town,
Chennai 3.
3. The Zonal Officer,
Zone No.9, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.1, Lake Area 4th Cross Street,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 27.11.2017, made in W.P.No.18837 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan
- - - - -
J U D G E M E N T
(Judgement of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Challenge in this writ appeal, is to an order made in W.P.No.18837 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017, by which, the Writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that it is up to the appellant Association to accept the offer given by the Zonal Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Nungambakkam, Chennai, 3rd respondent herein, since their members have been in occupation of the premises for several years, failing which, the 3rd respondent shall go ahead with the auction. If there are any arrears and the members of the appellant Association want to continue with the enhanced rent amount, the arrears shall be paid within two months from the date of acceptance of the offer. In case the members of the appellant Association fail to give consent for payment of the enhanced amount of rent within one month, it will be open to the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the auction, and till such time the auction is announced, the members of the appellant Association may continue to function in the same place. Writ Court has further observed that as there is a possibility that the appellant Association may challenge the auction notice and continue to function in the same place on account of any litigation or interim order, in order to avoid such circumstances, Writ Court held that once the auction notification is published, the members of the appellant Association are deemed to have vacated the tenement and the respondents can enter the place with the help of police force, if required.
2. Short facts leading to filing of the instant writ appeal, are as follows:
(i) Appellant herein, R.A.Puram Corporation Shopping Complex Association, is a Society formed on 13.06.2017 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is stated that in the year 1978, members of the appellant association were inducted as tenants of the shops at No.18/36, 3rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, R.A.Puram, Chennai -18 with one month rent, as advance.
(ii) On 06.11.2009, the District Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, directed the tenants to pay 10% increase once in three years. The members also duly accepted the same and were paying periodical enhancement.
(iii) On 28.04.2017, the appellant Association sent a letter for increase of the existing rent, from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-, together with 15% service tax, to the members of the appellant association.
(iv) On 07.06.2017, the appellant's association gave a representation expressing their inability to pay huge enhancement stating that after demonetisation and on-line business, the businesses of appellant association has been affected badly. The members of the appellant association further stated they have spent huge amount towards interior decoration, electricity and other furnishings permanently to their respective shops. They have also agreed orally to pay enhancement of 15% once in three years, as done by the HR & CE Department.
(v) On 23.06.2017, third respondent herein has sent a letter stating that they cannot consider the request of the appellant association, unless they agree for the enhancement by submitting a letter, otherwise, they would proceed with public auction, to evict the members of the appellant association summarily.
(vi) From February, 2017 onwards the respondents herein have refused to accept the contractual rent, but insisted the members of the appellant association to accept the enhancement.
3. Aggrieved over the same, appellant association preferred W.P.No.18837 of 2017, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the responders therein to consider writ petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2017 and to receive 15% enhancement once in 3 years instead of 10% fixed earlier, from the members of the writ petitioner association after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner association.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, Writ Court, vide order, dated 27.11.2017, at Paragraphs 5 to 10 held as follows: "5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the members of the Association cannot be represented by the Association, is not accepted by this Court. The sum and substance of the issue in question is as to whether the Corporation is entitled to fix the rent on a higher side, be it lease/rent and demand the amount from the petitioner, as calculated by them.
7. It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Association are in occupation of the premises in question as lessees and paying the rent regularly and that it was revised periodically once in every three years as per the said Government Order.
8. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.V.Subramanian v. Secretary to Government, 2014 (5) MLJ 129, has held that licence can be converted into one of lease and that the object of letting out the shop is to collect more revenue for the Municipality/ Corporation and that the extension granted to the existing licensees is only by way of concession and that the revision is made based on the prevailing market value and not otherwise. For better understanding, relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
"20. The facts narrated above would clearly indicate that the petitioners have been given only a licence to run the shops. Just because the word "lease" has been mentioned, a licence cannot ipso facto be converted into a lease. Admittedly, the licence issued has a fixed terms. Therefore, the petitioners do not have a legal or a vested right to continue in occupation for ever. There is no doubt that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961, does not apply to the case on hand. The petitioners can very well participate in the proposed auction. In other words, they cannot claim the right of a statutory tenant.
21. The object of letting out the shops is to collect more revenue for the respondent-Municipality, which is meant to be used for welfare measures. The Government Orders, as narrated above, are very specific about the purpose of auction followed by lease/licence. Since the transactions are commercial in nature, the petitioners, being licensees, cannot insist that the rent, which as they think, just and proper alone is liable to be paid. Since the licence is to be granted by the respondent-Municipality, while making offer, the said authority can impose its own terms in accordance with law. While accepting the said offer, the petitioners cannot insist that the condition attached therein cannot be imposed. A perusal of the Government Orders referred to above as well as the orders impugned make it clear that the rent has been fixed based upon the prevailing market value and not otherwise. What has been given by way of extension to an existing licensee was only a concession. The subsequent extension has been made during the pendency of the writ petitions. The said decision was made in view of the undertaking given by the licensees. An undertaking was given in connection with the payment as well as on the withdrawal of the writ petitions. The Government orders also state that in the event of non compliance of the conditions imposed including the payment of appropriate rent, a licensee is liable to be removed.
22. The resolution has been passed after making detailed discussion and it was also passed as a consequence of the earlier order dated 14.12.2012 by which rent was fixed. Since the said rent so fixed was not paid, the respondent-Municipality was made to pass the impugned resolution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned resolution has been unilaterally passed and as such, the said decision is in accordance with the Government Orders passed, which confer the power on the respondent-Municipality to take action towards the eviction from the shops in the event of non payment of rent payable. The extraction of the related paragraphs of the resolution would clearly show that relevant materials have been taken into consideration while passing the same. The respondent-Municipality has got its own duty and obligation to perform. Appointments will have to be made to the public office and salaries will have to be paid. Money will have to be spent towards the welfare measures. The assessment made also indicates that the proposed auction would bring more money. The best way to get the maximum revenue is by way of public auction. This will also create a level playing field enabling others to participate along with the petitioners/ licensees. Therefore, we do not find any arbitrariness in the action of the respondent-Municipality. The reliance made by the petitioners on the communication dated 12.03.2009 cannot be accepted since it cannot overreach the Government Orders which speak about removal when conditions are not complied with. The fact that the Commissioner of Municipal Administration directed the respondent-
Municipality to fix the market rent as the rent payable based upon the Government Orders which in turn was complied with would also show that there is no quarrel with the position that the market rent shall be the basis for the fixation of the rent payable by the licensees. In any case, the petitioners, being the defaulters, cannot contend that they should be allowed to continue forever. As the orders impugned have been passed by taking into consideration of the relevant materials, we do not find any room for interference."
9. From the above discussion and in the light of the decisions cited supra, the 3rd respondent herein has fixed the rent with all due considerations. Merely because there is a reduction of 33% in the guideline value, it would not be a reason enough for the petitioner to interfere with the order of the decision of the 3rd respondent. The Government might have revised the guideline value to 1/3 (33%) only to safeguard their own interest to avoid paying compensation to the landowners for the lands acquired by them, as they need to pay hefty compensation to the landowners in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and not otherwise.
10. Thus, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. It is upto the petitioner-Association to accept the offer given by the 3rd respondent, since their members have been in occupation of the premises for several years, failing which, the 3rd respondent shall go ahead with the auction. If there are any arrears and the members of the petitioner-Association want to continue with the enhanced rent amount, the arrears shall be paid within two months from the date of acceptance of the offer. In case the members of the petitioner-Association do not give consent for payment of the enhanced amount of rent within one month, it is open to the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the auction, and till such time the auction is announced, the members of the petitioner-Association may continue to function in the same place. As there is a possibility that the petitioner may challenge the auction notice and continue to function in the same place on account of any litigation or interim order, in order to avoid such circumstances, this Court holds that once the auction notification is published, the members of the petitioner-Association are deemed to have vacated the tenement and the respondents can enter the place with the help of police force, if required."
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, appellant association filed the instant writ appeal.
6. Mr.V.Subramanian, learned counsel for appellant, briefly submitted the facts of the case and assailed the order of the Writ Court, inter alia, as follows:
(i) Writ Court, relying on a Hon'ble Division Bench decision of this Court in P.V.Subramanian Vs. Secretary to Government, reported in 2014 (5) MLJ 129 has concluded that the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 1st respondent herein, has fixed the rent with all due consideration. Having regard to the facts of the case, reliance on aforesaid judgement is not at all proper and erroneous. In the said judgement, the main issue was the extension of license period, when admittedly licence issued was fixed terms and further an undertaking was given by licensees for the payment of increased rent. But, in the case on hand, the members of the appellant association being the lease holders of the premises situated at No.18/36, 3rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, R.A.Puram, Chennai 28 sought for reversal of the increased rent. The prayer in the said writ petition is to quash the auction proceedings for the lease of the property belonging to the Town Panchayat with further direction to renew the lease in favour of the members of the appellant association. Therefore, the facts in that case are not relevant in this case. Members of the Association have not questioned the right of the authorities to auction shops as they were granted renewal, but mainly aggrieved over the enhancement of rent which doesn't have any relation to the prevailing market value.
(ii) While laying down the various conditions G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, has clearly stated that the determination of the rent should be based upon the present market value, but no norms or criteria laid down in the said G.O. about the method of assessment of market value. The said G.O., being a source of power for the corporation, to re-determine rent, ought to have stated in clear terms about the method and manner of calculating the market rent for the existing lease holders. In the absence of any guidelines, the Zonal Committee headed by its Chairman cannot have any power or to fix its own criteria in carrying out the assessment of the market value of the leased properties.
(iii) That even the relevant circular dated 04.01.2017, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Corporation doesn't indicate, as to how to arrive at the present market value of the leased properties. It only states that the Zonal Committee shall re-determine the rent in accordance with market value of the shops, in the commercial complex and the aforesaid circular is also silent about the method of fixing the market value. In such a situation, re-determination of rent suffers from want of authority and the same is erroneous.
(iv) That the Resolution No.9/2017, passed by the 1st respondent states that License Inspectors have conducted the field inspection and based on that, the shops at the commercial complex, were assessed in accordance with present market value. According to the appellant, the first question arises in this regard is about the method adopted by the concerned License Inspectors in carrying out the assessment of the market value of the leased shops. Considering the steep and extraordinary increase, enhancement should be just and reasonable and should be supported by material documents. The said resolution which re-determines the rent based on the market value of the leased properties should contain some supporting materials in re-determining such enhanced rent, but nothing is available, except an indication to that effect that rent has been re-determined, based on the assessment of market value by licensed inspectors.
(v) That the re-determination of rent by the 1st respondent is an arbitrary exercise and would clearly reflect non application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent. The order of the 3rd respondent dated 28.04.2017, addressed to the lease holders also does not give any clear picture, as to how such an enhanced rent, has been re-determined. Unless and until some records or materials indicate the basis to arrive at such enhance rent, the affected party would be deprived of a reasonable opportunity to contest the merit of the decision making process.
(vi) That the appellant through its letter dated 07.06.2017, addressed to the 1st respondent has requested to enhance 10% rent once in 3 years, instead of 15%, as enhanced rent, which is high and has caused headship, to all the small business people, with meager income. One of the members of the association, Mr.Ravishankar, has sent a letter requesting for reduction of the enhanced rent. In response to that letter, the 3rd respondent, through his proceedings dated 23.06.2017 said that while arriving at the market value for the shops at the commercial complex, rental agreement of neighboring shops were examined and compared, and that a decision had been taken in determination of rent. It is unfortunate that the abovesaid proceedings does not disclose as to who are the neighboring shop owners, the distance, their addresses, nature of the shops, process of determination for enhancing the rent with the market value and therefore, the appellant has contended that the same cannot be sustained legally, capricious, exercise undertaken is arbitrary, in and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. According to the appellant association, various factors have to be considered, while determining the market value of the property, including the guidelines, value of the neighboring properties, and the rental value of similarly placed shops, location etc.,
(vii) That the process of determination of rent is illegal and suffers from want of authority. The prevailing market value of the shops and commercial complex, are much lower than the rent fixed by the respondents and it is borne out from the facts from the proper comparison of neighboring properties of similar nature. The discretion vested with the 3rd respondent in determining, the market value has been misused and abused, according to the whims and fancies of the licensed inspectors, who conducted the alleged field inspection. Further, it is not known as to what kind of yardstick was adopted in determining the market value of the leased properties and that the same is not transparent, unfair and not recognized by law.
(viii) That when G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, provides for re-determination of the enhanced rent by having regard to the market value of the property the said G.O. should have provided with guidelines, criteria, norms for arriving at the market value of the leased properties. Since it is totally silent on the aforesaid aspects, G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, is vitiated, unenforceable and arbitrary.
(ix) Referring to the Chennai Corporation Resolution No.94/2017, dated 21.02.2017, Mr.V.Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant association further contended that a Committee has been stipulated. Learned counsel stated that in far as the said Committee is concerned, it has been set up in the year 2017, but there is no competent member. Even before the constitution of the Committee, decision has been taken by the Corporation with regard to enhancement of rent. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the appellant association prayed to set aside the order of the Writ Court.
7. Per contra, Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Corporation of Chennai submitted that the appellant association has no locus to represent all the allottees, in the shopping complex, as only 18 allottees, are the members of appellate association. At no point of time, Chennai Corporation has entered into an agreement with the appellant association and the appellant association has been formed only in the year 2017 i.e. on 17.07.2017. The Association cannot act as an intermediatory between the Corporation and all the tenants. The appellant association has only 18 members and not 101 members as claimed by the appellant association, in the typed set of papers.
8. Learned standing counsel for the corporation, further submitted that earlier, as per G.O.M.S.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, members of the appellant association have been periodically paying the revised rent, once in every three years. The said G.O.Ms.No.92, provides for enhancement of rent by 15% every three years for three consecutive terms i.e. upto 9 years. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.92 has already been challenged in this Court and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in C.Vinoba and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner, Palladam Municipality, Tiruppur District in W.A.No.1471 of 2014 dated 12.11.2014, upheld the validity of said G.O. and thereafter the matter was taken up on appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.12.2014 made in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.34543/2014 dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that after 9 years from coming into effect of the said G.O.Ms.No.92, Corporation has now enhanced the rent, and if the members of the appellant association, accept the rent and pay the same, they can continue in possession and if the rent is not acceptable to them, then they have to vacate the shops, and that the shops would be brought, for public auction.
10. Learned standing counsel further contended that consent for enhancement has to be given within one month and payment of arrears, has to be made, within two months. He further stated that 11 shops have already paid the arrears of rent, to the tune of Rs.20,84,694, out of the total due of Rs.3,73,43,432/- from the said shopping complex.
11. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation further submitted that competence of the Committee has not been challenged either in the writ petition or raised even as a ground, in the writ appeal and the appellant association has only raised the said issue now, by filing additional typed set of papers which should not be permitted and for the reasons stated supra, sought for dismissal of the instant writ appeal. He has also relied on the decisions of this Court, on the power of the authorities, to fix rent, and decisions, on the G.O.M.S.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the materials on record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Instant writ appeal has been listed for admission before us today i.e. 25.06.2018 as a specially ordered matter, as there was a representation that there was urgency in the matter and contention has been made that without any notice to the members of the appellant association, respondent Corporation is taking steps to evict them from their respective shops on 26.06.2018.
14. Though Mr.V.Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant association initially contended that the members of the association have not received any notice from the respondent Corporation to pay arrears of rent and that they would be evicted, if they fail to pay the enhanced rent to till date, finally conceded that, the members of appellant association have received the notice bearing No.Ma.A.9.Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No.R/3/0203 /2017 dated 12.06.2018 on 18.06.2018 itself and produced a copy of the same before the Court.
15. Notice dated 12.06.2018, now conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant association, to have received the notice dated 12.06.2018, is reproduced herein:-
"mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; kz;ly mYtyh;. R.A.Puram Corporation Shopping Complex kz;lyk;?9. Association (165/2017),Rep. by its President, bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp. R.Balasubramanian, Door No.18/1, Shop be/1. 4tJ FWf;F bjU. No.35S&36,2nd floor, R.A.Puram 3rd Cross St, nyf; Vhpah. E';fk;ghf;fk;. br?34. Chennai - 600 028.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
k/m/9/t/J/e/f/vz;/Mh;3/0203/2017 ehs;12/06/2018/ bghUs; : bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp ? kz;lyk; ? 9 ? tUtha; Jiw ? tzpf tshfk; ? Mh;/V/g[uk; 3tJ FWf;Fj; bjU ? re;ijtpiy mog;gilapy; thlif cah;j;jg;gl;lJ ? cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F ? nky; KiwaPL ? ,Wjp jPh;g;g[ tHf;F ? nky; KiwaPL ? ,Wjp jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;lJ ? cah;j;jg;gl;l thlifj; bjhifapid cldoahf brYj;jf; nfhUjy; ? bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it : brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Miz vz;/W.P.No.18837/2017, ehs;/27/11/2017/ ghh;itapy; fz;Ls;s brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Mizapd;go. Mh;/V/g[uk; brd;id khefuhl;rpapd; tzpf tshf filfSf;F. bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rpahy; cah;j;jg;gl;l thlifj; bjhifapid xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; brYj;j cj;jutpl;Lk;. thlifia brYj;jhj gl;rj;jpy;. filapd; xJf;fPl;lhsiu fhty; Jiw cjtpa[ld; btspnaw;wp. filapid bghJ Vy Kiwapy; Vyk; tplt[k; kw;Wk; jh';fs; bjhlh;e;j tHf;fpid js;Sgo bra;Jk; khz;g[kpF cah;ePjpkd;wk; 27/11/2017 md;W jPh;g;g[ tH';fpaJ/ vdnt. khz;g[kpF ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go. ,f;fojk; fpilf;fg;bgw;w 7 jpd';fSf;Fs; Mh;/V/g[uk; tzpf tshf filfspd; thlifia epYitapd;wp cldahf brYj;j nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; Mh;/V/g[uk; tzpf tshf filfis khefuhl;rp trk; vLf;fg;gLtnjhL. bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp Kdprpgy; rl;lk; 1919 kw;Wk; muR Miz vz;/92. ehs;/03/07/2007d;go epYitapd;wp thlif bjhifapid tN:ypf;f chpa nky; eltof;if vLf;fg;gLk;/ mjw;Fz;lhd bryt[ bjhifa[k; j';fsplnk tN:ypf;fg;gLk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ kz;ly mYtyh;.
kz;lyk;?9"
16. G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 and the Resolution No.94/2017 dated 21.02.2017, of the Chennai Corporation, are extracted hereunder:
G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007:
G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipality Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 RUf;fk;
Fj;jif ? efh;g;g[w cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fSf;F brhe;jkhd filfs; ? epy';fs; Mfpatw;iw Fj;jiff;F tpLjy; ? Fj;jiff;F g[Jg;gpj;jy; Fwpj;J ? jpUj;jpa eilKiwfs; Mizfs; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ ????????
efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tH';fy; (eep4) Jiw murhiz (epiy) vz;/92 ehs; : 03.07.2007 gof;f :
1/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/285. e/ep/(k) F/t/Jiw. ehs;: 29.04.1985 2/ murhiz (,Ugjhz;Lfs;) vz;/147. e/ep(k)/Jiw. ehs;: 30.12.2000.
3/ jkpH;ehL cs;shl;rp fil tpahghhpfs; r';fk;. fojk; ehs; : 12.10.2001 kw;Wk; 05.06.2003.
4/ efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah;. fojk; Roc.vz/38427-2003-Mh;/2.
ehs;;: 28.07.2006.
---
Miz;:
ghh;it ,uz;oy; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; efuhl;rpf;F brhe;jkhd filfs; kw;Wk; ,ju brhj;Jf;fisf; Fj;jiff;F tpLtjw;fhd eilKiwiaj; jpUj;jpaikj;J muR Miz gpwg;gpj;jJ/ mt;turhizapy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;l ehd;F Kf;fpakhd epge;jidfs; gpd;tUkhW;:-
1/ bghJthf efh;g;g[w cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fspy; vy;yh mirah brhj;Jf;fSk; Kjypy; K:d;whz;LfSf;F bghJ Vyk; K:yk; Fj;jiff;F tplg;gl ntz;Lk; mirah brhj;Jf;fs; mf;Fj;jif fhyk; Koe;j gpd;dh; kWgoa[k; bghJ Vyj;jpy; tplyhkh my;yJ giHa Fj;jifjhuh;fS;fnf ePl;og;g[ bra;J tH';fyhkh vd;gij rk;ke;jg;gl;l cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fns Kot[ bra;J bfhs;syhk;/ 2/ mt;thW g[Jg;gpj;J tH';fg;gLk; Fj;jifapid. g[jpajhff; fUjp. midj;J eltof;iffspYk; Kiwahd Fj;jif bewpKiwfs; gpd;gw;wg;gl ntz;Lk;/ 3/ mt;thW tH';fg;gl;l g[jpa ,dj;jpw;F mLj;j K:d;whz;LfSf;fhd Fj;jif bjhifapid (khjhe;jpu thlif) Ke;ija Fj;jif bjhiff;F nky; 15 tpGf;fhl;ow;F Fiwahky;. me;jg; gFjpfspy; epytp tUk; re;ij thlif kjpg;gpw;nfs;g cah;t[ bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk;/ 4/ nkw;go Fj;jifapid. Fj;jif chpikjhuh;fspd; thhpRfSf;F g[Jg;gpf;ff;TlhJ/ thhpRjhuh; trkpUg;gpd;. mt;tirah brhj;Jf;fis cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fs; cld; gwpKjy; bra;J. bghJ Vyk; K:yk; kPz;Lk; Fj;jiff;F tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ (2) K:d;whtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy;. jkpH;ehL cs;shl;rp fil tpahghhpfs; eyr; r';fk;. efuhl;rpfsplkpUe;J Fj;jiff;F vLf;fg;gl;l filfspy; tpahghuk; elj;j filf;fhuh;fs; bgUk; bjhifia KjyPL bra;a ntz;oa[s;sJ vd;Wk;. vdnt. Fj;jiffis ePl;og;gjw;fhd epge;jidfisj; jsh;j;j ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. 30/12/2000?k; ehspl;l murhiz (2o) vz;/147y; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s epge;jidfs; jpUk;gg;bgw ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. K:d;W Mz;LfSf;F xU Kiw Fj;jifj; bjhif 25 rjtPjk; cah;j;jg;gLtjw;Fk; jkJ r';fk; rk;kjk; bjhptpj;Js;sJ vd;Wk;. nkYk; Fj;jifjhuh;fspd; rl;lg;goahd thhpRjhuh;fSf;F Fj;jifia ePl;of;f mDkjpj;J epge;jidfisj; jsh;j;j ntz;Lbkdt[k; nfl;Lf; bfhz;Ls;sJ/ (3) 30/12/2000?k; ehspl;l murhiz vz;/(2o) vz;/147?y; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s kw;Wk; jw;nghJ eilKiwapYs;s Fj;jif epge;jidfis xl;o. jkpH;ehL cs;shl;rpf; fil tpahghhpfs; ey r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;iffs; Fwpj;J efuhl;rp eph;thf MizahsUld; fye;jhnyhrpj;J Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;l nghJ. jw;nghija epge;jidfisr; bray;gLj;Jtjpy; gyeilKiwr; rpf;fy;fs; vGfpd;wd vd;Wk;. efuhl;rp filfis Vyk; tpLtJ Fwpj;J 2200?f;Fk; nkw;gl;l tHf;Ffs; ePjpkd;w';fspy; epYitahf cs;sd vd;Wk;. ,t;tHf;Ffs; midj;Jk; Fj;jif epge;jidfspd; gy;ntW mk;r';fisa[k; brayhf;Ftjd; eilKiw rpf;fy;fis bjhptpj;J jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd vd;Wk;. nkYk;. ,tw;iw bray;gLj;Jtjpy; gy Kf;fpakhd gpur;ridfs; vw;gLfpd;wd vd;Wk;. 30/12/2000 Mk; ehspl;l murhiz (2o) vz;/147d; fhuzkhf vGfpd;w gy;ntW gpur;ridiag; ghprPypj;j cah;ePjpkd;wk; (rl;lg;goahd thhpRjhuh;fshy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l kDf;fs; bjhlh;ghf tHf;Ffspd; bjhFg;gpy;) 27/7/2001?k; ehsd;W gpwg;gpj;j Mizapy;. cs;shl;rp kd;w';fs; Fj;jiff;F tpLtJ Fwpj;J btt;ntW bewpKiwfis tiuaWj;J mof;fo muR Mizfs; gpwg;gpj;jhnyna njitaw;w tHf;Ffs; njhd;wpd vd;W Fwpg;gpl;oUg;gijf; fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. muR bghJ eyidf; fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. ,jid kW ghprPyid bra;J efuhl;rp brhj;Jf;fis Fj;jiff;F tpLtjw;fhd eilKiwia xnu rPuhdjhf;FtJ Fwpj;J xU Kot[ vLf;f ntz;Lbkd;W cah;ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. efuhl;rpapd; brhj;J kw;Wk; efuhl;rpf; filfs; Mfpatw;wpd; Fj;jif gw;wpa epge;jidfis Vw;Wf; bfhs;fpd;w tifapy; gpd;tUkhW vspikg;gLj;jpr; rPuikf;fyhk; vd;W efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; fUj;Jj; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ (1) efuhl;rp brhj;Jf;fis xnu neuj;jpy; K:d;whz;L fhyj;jpw;Ff; Fj;jiff;F tplyhk;/ K:d;W Mz;Lfs; bfhz;l xU bjhFg;g[f; fhy mst[ Kotiltjd; nghpy; mf;Fj;jif jd;dpay;ghfnt g[Jg;gpf;fg;glyhk;. ,t;thwhf 15 Mz;Ls; tiuapy; g[Jg;gpj;Jf; bfhs;syhk; xt;bthU Kiw g[Jg;gpf;fg;gLk; nghJk;. Fj;jifj; bjhifia 15 rjtPjk; cah;j;jg;gl ntz;Lk;/ (,e;j 15 Mz;Lfs; vd;w epge;jid. brapz;l; jhk!; kt[z;l; fz;nlhd;nkz;l; gFjpapy; eilKiwapYs;sij mog;gilahff; bfhz;L tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ ,jw;F efuhl;rp eph;thf ,af;ffk; kw;Wk; cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fs; Mfpatw;wpd; nkk;ghl;L Vw;ghLfs; Fwpj;j Ma;t[ mwpf;ifapYk; ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ)
(ii) mDkjpaw;w Mf;fpukpg;g[fisg; bghWj;jtiu 9 khj Fj;jifj; bjhifia Kd; gzkhf tNypg;gjw;F cl;gl;L xU jlit kl;Lk; tH';Fk; rYifahf mtw;iw Kiwg;gLj;j mDkjpf;fyhk;/
(iii) Fj;jifjhuh; ,we;J tpLk; neh;tpy; mthpd; rl;lg;goahd thhpRfs; (mthpd; kidtp my;yJ fztd; my;yJ mth;fspd; FHe;ijfs; kl;Lk;) epge;jidfSf;F ,z';fp elf;f xg;g[f;bfhs;tjw;F cl;gl;L mth;fs; Fj;jifiaj; bjhlu mDkjpf;fyhk;/ 4/ nkw;brhd;d fUj;JUf;fis muR ed;F Muha;e;jgpd;. ,uz;lhtjhf gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s Fj;jif epge;jidfisr; bray;gLj;Jifapy; vGk; eilKiwg; gpur;ridfs; gw;wpa kjpg;gPl;od; mog;gilapYk;. efuhl;rpr; brhj;Jf;fisf; Fj;jiff;F tpLtjw;fhd eilKiwia vspikg;gLj;Jk; nehf;fpYk; gpd;tUk; eilKiwfs; gpd;gw;wg;glyhk; vd;W fUjp mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ/
(i) Kjy; jlitahf Fj;jiff;F tplg;gLk;nghJ efuhl;rpapd; mirah brhj;Jf;fs; midj;Jk; bghJ Vyj;jpd; K:ykhf Fj;jiff;F tplg;gl ntz;Lk;/
(ii) efuhl;rpf; filfs;. xnu neuj;jpy; K:d;whz;L fhyj;jpw;Ff; Fj;jiff;F tplg;glyhk;/ K:d;W Mz;Lfisf; bfhz;l xU bjhFg;g[f; fhy mst[ Kotiltjd; nghpy;. mf;Fj;jif jd;dpay;ghfnt (Automatically) g[Jg;gpf;fg;gLk;/ ,t;thwhf xd;gJ Mz;Lfs; tiuapy; g[Jg;gpf;fg;gLk;/ K:d;whz;LfSf;F xU Kiw Fj;jifj; bjhif 15 (gjpide;J) rjtpJk; cah;j;jg;gLk;/ (,e;epge;jid jw;nghJ Fj;jifia mDgtpj;J tUk; Fj;jifjhuh;fSf;Fk; bghUe;Jk;)
(iii) xd;gJ Mz;LfSf;Fg; gpd;dh;. Fj;jif thlif kWkjpg;gPL bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk;/ jw;nghija Fj;jifjhuUf;F mg;nghija m';fho kjpg;gpd; mog;gilapyhd jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gl;l Fj;jif tPjj;jpy;. nkw;bfhz;L 9 Mz;LfSf;F Fj;jiff; fhy msit ePl;oj;Jf; bfhs;s Kd;Dhpik mspf;fyhk;/ mth; xg;g[f; bfhs;stpy;iyahdhy;. mr;brhj;J bghJ Vyj;jpd; K:yk; Fj;jiff;F tpl ntz;Lk;/
(iv) Fj;jifjhuh;fs; K:d;W Mz;Lf;F xU Kiw Fj;jifia g[Jg;gpf;ff; fPH;fz;l tPj';fspd; fl;lzk; brYj;j ntz;Lk;/ 1/ <100 r/m U:/500-/ (U:gha; IEhW kl;Lk;) 2/ 100?500 r/mo U:/1000-/ (U:gha; Mapuk; kl;Lk;) 3/ 500?1000 r/mo U:/1500 (U:gha; Mapuj;J IEhW kl;Lk;) 4/ >100 r/m U:/2000-?(U:gha; ,uz;lhapuk; kl;Lk;)
(v) mDkjpaw;w mDnghfjhuh;fspd; neh;tpy;. xUKiw kl;Lnk mspf;fg;gLk; rYif mog;gilapy;. Fj;jif chpikia mth;fSila bgahpy; khw;wpj; juyhk;/ ,jw;fhf tpz;zg;gjhuh; 12 khj';fSf;Fhpa khjhe;jpu Fj;jif bjhiff;F rkkhd bjhifia Kd;gzkhfr; brYj;j ntz;Lk;/ ,J jtpu fPnH Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s Fiwe;j mst[ bjhiff;Fl;gl;L. 12 khj thliff;F rkkhd bjhifia bgah; khw;wf; fl;lzkhft[k; mth; brYj;j ntz;Lk;/ 1/ <100 r/m U:/2500-/ (U:gha; ,uz;lhapuj;J IEhW kl;Lk;) 2/ 100?500 r/mo U:/5000-/ (U:gha; Ie;jhapuk; kl;Lk;) 3/ 500?1000 r/mo U:/7500(U:gha; VHhapuj;J IEhW kl;Lk;) 4/ >100 r/m U:/10000-?(U:gha; gj;jhapuk;; kl;Lk;)
(vi) Kjy; Fj;jifjhuhpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; midj;Jg; ghf;fpj; bjhiffisa[k; brYj;Jtjd; nghpYk;. efh;g;g[w cs;shl;rp kd;wk; mt;tg;nghJ eph;zpaf;Fk; Fj;jifj; bjhifia brYj;j xg;g[f; bfhs;Sk; epge;jidfSf;Fl;gl;Lk; mth;fSila bgahpy; Fj;jif chpik khw;wk; bgw chpika[ilatuhthh;/ rl;lg;goahd thhpRjhuh;fs; bghJthd Fj;jif epge;jidfs; kw;Wk; Fj;jif eph;zaj;jpw;F cl;gl;lth;fshth; bgah; khw;wk; bra;tjw;fhd tpz;zg;gf; fl;lzk; U:/500-? (U:gha; IEhW kl;Lk;) Mf eph;zapf;fg;gLk;/
(vii) jw;nghJ brd;id khefuhl;rp jdf;Fr; brhe;jkhd brhj;Jf;fis Fj;jiff;F tpLtJ bjhlh;ghf. btt;ntW eilKiwfisa[k;. epge;jidfisa[k; gpd;gw;wp tUfpwJ/ cjhuzkhf. khefuhl;rp jd;Dila brhj;Jf;fis xnu neuj;jpy; 12 khj fhy mstpw;F kl;Lnk Fj;jiff;F tpLfpd;wJ/ ,jdhy; njiyaw;w vGj;Jg; gzpa[k; kpifg; gzpa[k; Vw;gLfpwd;wd/ jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gl;l ,e;epge;jidfs; kd;wj;jpd; xg;g[jYf;F cl;gl;L. brd;id khefuhl;rpf;Fk; bghUe;Jk;/
(viii) Mizfs; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; ehspypUe;J. jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gl;l tuk;g[ epge;jidfs; bghUe;Jk;/ 5/ nkw;brhd;d bewpKiwfis fz;og;ghf gpd;gw;Wk;go cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fSf;F mwpt[iufs; tH';FkhW efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; kw;Wk; Mizah; - brd;id khefuhl;rp Mizah; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/ 6/ nkny gj;jp 4?y; btspaplg;gl;Ls;s Mizfis bjhlh;e;J jkpH;ehL 1920?y; Mz;L khtl;l efuhl;rpfs; rl;lk; (k) khefuhl;rpfs; rk;ke;jg;gl;l me;je;jr; rl;l';fspd; fPH; tUk; chpa tpjpfis jpUj;jpaikg;gjw;fhd braw;Fwpg;gpiz muRf;F mDg;gp itf;Fk;go efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/ 7/ ,t;thiz ePjpj;Jiwapd; m/rh/F/vz/1223-FS-07. ehs; 11/04/2017?y; mspj;j xg;g[jYld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ/ (MSehpd; Mizg;go) nf/jPdge;J muRr; brayhsh;/ Resolution No.94/2017:
k/m/9/t/J/e/f/vz;/Mh;3-0203-2017 jPh;khd vz;/094-2017 ehs;/21?02?2017 kz;lyk;?9?tUtha;j;Jiw?9 tUl';fs; fle;jtpl;l tzpf tshf';fis re;ij tpiyf;nfw;g khjhe;jpu thlif kW eph;zak; bra;a mDkjp/ murhiz (epiy) vz;/92. efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tH';fy; (e/ep?4) Jiw. ehs;/03/07/2007d;go Fj;jif fhyk; 9 Mz;Lfs; Koe;j midj;J brd;id khefuhl;rp tzpf tshf filfSf;F thlif kWeph;zak; bra;J g[Jg;gpf;FkhW murhiz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lij mLj;J. Jiz Mizah; (t (k) ep) mth;fspd; 04/01/2017 ehspl;l Rw;wwpf;ifapd; go. bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rpapy; kz;ly mYtyiu FG jiytuhft[k;. cjtp tUtha; mYtyh;. fzf;F mYtyh; kw;Wk; chpkk; Ma;thsh; Mfpnahiu FG cWg;gpduhf bfhz;L tzpf tshf filfSf;fhd re;ij tpiyf;nfw;g thlif kjpg;gpid kW eph;zak; bra;J FG mikj;J bray;glntz;Lk; vd mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lJ/ mjd;gog;gilapy; kz;lyk;?9y; Ma;t[f;FG mikf;fg;gl;lJ/ chpkk; Ma;thsh;fspd; fs Ma;tpd; nghJ fz;lwpag;gl;l thlifapd; mog;gilapy; kz;lyk;?9y; mike;Js;s tzpf tshf filfSf;F jw;nghija epytuj;jpw;nfw;g re;ijtpiyapy; thlif kW eph;zak; bra;a fPH;fz;lthW ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ t/vz;
thh;L vz;
tzpf tshfk; mike;Js;s ,lk;
bkhj;j filfs;
9 tUl';fs; Kot[w;w filfspd; vz;zpf;if jw;nghJ tN:ypf;fg;gLk; thlif (r/mo xd;Wf;F) U:/ re;ij tpiyapy; jw;nghija thlif (r/mo/xd;Wf;F) U:/ re;ij tpiyapy; thlif kjpg;g[ (r/mo/xd;Wf;F) U:/ j/eh/E/bgh/th/fHfj;jpd; filfs;
Fwpg;g[iu 1 110 nyf; Vhpah. 4tJ FWf;F bjU. brd;id?34 19 19 3/70 60/00 40/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
3 2 112ou!;Lg[uk;. 1tJ gpujhd rhiy. nfhlk;ghf;fk;. brd;id?600024 80 80 37/64 60/00 50/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
,y;iy 3 114 fhkuh$h; rhiy (Ru';fg;ghij) nrg;ghf;fk;. brd;id?5 30 30 95/00 mjpfgl;rkhf 120/00 105/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
,y;iy 4 118 vk;/V. fhh;ld;. njdhk;ngl;il. brd;id?18 14 14 17/00 46/50 30/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
4 5 118gp/tp/nfhtpy; bjU. nfhghyg[uk;. brd;id?600 086 1 1 5/00 jkpH;ehL Efh;bghUs; thzpg fHfk;
jkpH;ehL Efh;bghUs; thzpg fHfk;
1 6 122nf/gp/jhrd; rhiy. njdhk;ngl;il. brd;id ? 600 018 16 16 28/00 60/00 50/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
,y;iy 7 123 rp/gp/uhkrhkp rhiy. MH;thh;ngl;il.
brd;id ? 600018 93 93 39/00 60/00 Kjy; 135/00 tiu 80/00 nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
3 8 123uh$h mz;zhkiyg[uk;. MH;thh;ngl;il.
brd;id ? 600018 128 128 24/00 60/00 Kjy; 135/00 tiu 70/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
9 9 124fr;nrhp rhiy. kapyhg;g{h;. brd;id ? 600 004 17 17 30/00 74/00 70/00 + nrit fl;lzk; 15 rjtPjk;
,y;iy k/m/9/t/J/e/f/vz;/Mh;3-0203-2017 kz;lyk;?9y; cs;s 9 tzpftshf';fspYs;s bkhj;jk; 521 filfspy; thh;L 117y; ,of;fg;gl;l 118 filfs; kw;Wk; kz;lyk;?10I rhh;e;j 5 filfs; jtpu kPjKs;s 398 filfspy;. 20 filfs; jkpH;ehL Efh;bghUs; thzpg fHfj;jpw;F thlif tplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jkpH;ehL Efh;bghUs; thzpg fHfj;jpw;F tplg;gl;l filfSf;F rJuo xd;Wf;F U:/5-? tPjk; tN:ypf;f Vw;fdnt kd;w jPh;khdk; ,aw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. kPjs;s 378 (thh;L vz; 123y; fhypahf cs;s xU filapida[k; nrh;j;J bkhj;jk; 378) filfs; bghJ Vyj;jpy; xJf;fPL bra;ag;gl cs;sJ/ vdnt. nkw;Fwpg;gpl;lg;gl;Ls;s 378 tzpf tshf filfSf;F nkw;Fwpg;gpl;lgo jw;nghija re;ij tpiy mog;gilapy; thlif eph;zak; rpwg;g[ mjpfhhp?epiyf;FG (thp tpjpg;g[ kw;Wk; epjp) kw;Wk; kd;wk; mth;fspd; mDkjp nfhhpa MizauJ 18/02/2017 ehspl;l Fwpg;g[ gof;fg;gl;lJ/ "rpwg;g[ mjpfhhp?epiyf;FG(thp tpjpg;g[ kw;Wk; epjp) kw;Wk; kd;wk; mth;fshy; mDkjp mspf;fg;gl;lJ"/
17. Correspondence with regard to rent, between the members of the appellant association and respondent Corporation dated 06.11.2009, 28.04.2017, 07.06.2017, 23.06.2017 and 27.04.1978 are extracted hereunder:
Letter Dated 06.11.2009 :
From To REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRU.VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAND AND EXCISE NO.6/7, RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM CHENNAI CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.142 RIPON BUILDINGS NONE-10 CHENNAI-600 003 N.M.U.T.NA KA NO.E2/SPECIAL/2009
SUB:CHENNAI CORPORATION LAND AND EXCISE ZONE-10 WARD NO.142 RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM GROUND FLOOR 01 TO 11 INCREASING OF RENT FROM 01.04.2000 onwards by 10% SEEKING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS - REG REF: 1.CHENNAI CORPORATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO.365/2000 dt.22.06.2000.
2.CHENNAI CORPORATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO.286/2009 dt.28.8.2009
--
With reference to you that the CHENNAI CORPORATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION dt.01.04.2000 onwards 10% for the increasing of rent the CHENNAI CORPORATION HAD BEEN RESOLLVED BY THE DECISIONS.
Under Reference 2 and as per the CHENNAI CORPORATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION from 01.04.2000 onwards for every three year 10% depreciation increasing of rent and the orders had been issued by the Committee. Hence the Chennai Corporation Zone 10 Ward NO.142, RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM SHOPPING COMPLEX bearing No.6/7 FIRST FLOOR SHOP payment of amount from 01.04.2000 to 31.10.2009 for the increasing of rent by 10% HENCE UNDER THE CHENNAI CORPORATION ACT 19/9 Part 4 U/S 387 already remitted the amount wholly and the arrears payment to be paid within 7 days and if failure the same will come into auction and to be alloted to another person. Hence the arrears of amount to be paid with the abovesaid time limit and also penalty amount to be paid and hence it is requested to kindly avert the same.
DETAILS OF THE ARREARS AMOUNT PAID TO TILL DATE 10% INCREASING OF RENT TO BE PAID
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01.04.2000 TO 31.03.2003 1064x36=38304/- 01.04.2000 TO 31.03.2003 1170x36 = 42120/-
01.04.2003 TO 31.03.2006 1064X36=38304/- 01.04.2003 TO 31.03.2006 1287X36 = 46332/-
01.04.2006 TO 31.03.2009 1064X36=38304/- 01.04.2006 TO 31.03.2009 1416X36 = 50976/-
01.04.2009 TO 31.10.2009 1064X07=7448/- 01.04.2009 TO 31.10.2009 1558x07 = 10906/-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE PAID RS.1,50,334/-
AMOUNT PAID RS.1,22,360/-
-----------------
TOTAL ARREARS RS. 2,794/-
-----------------
(SD) XXX
FOR THE REVENUE OFFICER
LAND & EXCISE
Letter Dated 28.04.2017 :
From To
ZONAL OFFICER D. KANNAIYAPPAN
ZONE-9 SHOP NO. G14
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN CORPN. RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM,
1 LAKE AREA, 4TH CROSS STREET ALWARPET
NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-600018
CHENNAI-600034
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Z.A. 9 RD NA KA NO.R3/0209/2017 DT.28.04.2017 SUB: CHENNAI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION - ZONE - 9 REVENUE DEPARTMENT - EXPIRY OF 9 YEARS LEASE PERIOD FOR THE SHOPS AT THE SHOPPING COMPLEX - FIXATION OF FAIR RENT OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR THE SHOPS AT THE MARKET RATE BASIS FOR THE SHOPPING COMPLEX - ISSUANCE OF INFORMATION - REGARDING.
REF: 1. GOVT (PRESENT) NO.92, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER DISTRIBUTION (NN-4) DEPARTMENT DT. 03.07.2007
2. Committee Resolution No.094/2017 dt.21.02.2017 This is to inform that the orders had been issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Distribution (NN-4) Department dt. 03.07.2007 in connection with the fixation of fair rent for the shops measuring 9 shops at the Shopping Complex with the CHENNAI METRO CORPORATION NONE-9 since for the lease period of 9 years had been expired and as per the reference 2 the Resolution of the Committee and the following orders had been issued by the METROPOLITAN CHENNAI CORPORATION for the shopping complex of the shops for the fixation of market rate and refixing the rate.
As per the instruction for the Committee Decision, after the period of 9 years, the revalue of the rent to be made and the previous market value basis recorrection of rate as per the ratio and for the 9 years lease period to be extended and preference can be given and the tenants cannot accept the same and the said shops will come into public auction and hence the Committee Decision has been explained clearly.
Hence as per the decision of the Committee the arrears of rent till 28.02.2017 and the surcharge tax by 15% to be remitted and paid and the increasing of rent with effect from 01.03.2017 to be paid along with the 15% Service tax to be remitted.
Hence the Lessor/Tenants to be paid for the renewal of the leased period for every three years and the details are as follows:
1.BELOW 100 SQFT RS.500/-(RS.FIVE HUNDRED ONLY)
2.FROM 101 TO 500 SQFT RS.1000/-(RS.ONE THOUSANDS ONLY)
3.FROM 501 TO 1000 SQFT RS.1500/- (RS. ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY)
4.FROM 1001 TO 1500 SQFT RS.2,000/-(RS.TWO THOUSANDS ONLY) S.NO. Division Shop NO. Name of the Area Market Rate Monthly Complex and basis rent and rent Place refixation value SQFT Per
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 G14 RAJA 252 70 17640/-
ANNAMALAIPURAM ALWARPET CHENNAI-600018 Service TAX @ 15% TOTAL 2646 20286/-
Hence with reference to the above for the CHENNAI CORPORATION COMMITTEE DECISION the shopping complex and the tenants for the increasing of rents and their reply to be submitted within 15 days from this date to the Zone-9 REVENUE SECTION ASST. REVENUE OFFICER and if failure, necessary action will be initiated and taken by the CHENNAI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION RULES AND LAWS.
(SD) XXXXX THE ZONAL OFFICER ZONE-9 25/10/2017 Letter Dated 07.06.2017 :
TO THE COMMISSIONER AVARGAL METRO CHENNAI CORPORATION RIPON BUILDINGS, CHENNAI-600 003 SUB: Increasing of rent the shops at the Shopping Complex - REG.
This is to inform your goodself that the allotment of shop at the Shopping Complex and running the Business since for the past 30 years more attached the Revenue Department Zone 9 attached to the CHENNAI METRO CORPORATION AND rendering business.
Moreover we have invested more amounts as per the necessity and decorated the shops with full furnitures and other equipments and we had done all these things.
It is hereby submitted that the above mentioned shops our Customers believed and rendering our Business and hence there are huge amounts and customers arrears are there and with the believing only on the said shops and we have to take out our livelihood and now at the present economical situations and moreover our income are very low and all in a poor and downtrodden way.
In this critical situation and the rent has been increased more exorbitant for so many and announcement was made from low 500% to 1000% and for three years the rent has been increased by 10% and also paying that rent also.
It is hereby submitted that we are unable to pay the increased rent and equalise the same and also tight money and moreover our life will be ruined only believing on this Complex and hence the question had been raised.
Hence in the light of the abovesaid circumstances we therefore request your goodself to kindly consider our demands sympathetical and issue and pave ways for the increasing or rent by 10% for every three years and it is also requested to kindly send the copies of GOVT(STATUS) No.92, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER DISTRIBUTION (NN-4) DEPARTMENT DT. 3.7.2007 AND GOVT COMMITTEE DECISION NO.094/2007 dt.21.02.2017 and oblige.
Letter Dated 23.06.2017 :
mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; kz;ly mYtyh;. R.MANIRAJU kz;lyk;?9. DOOR.NO-6/1, SHOP.NO-42, FF brd;id khefuhl;rp. R A PURAM 3RD CROSS STREET tUtha; Jiw. Chennai-600018 be/1. 4tJ FWf;F bjU. nyf; Vhpah. E';fk;ghf;fk;/ br?34/
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
k/m/9/t/J/e/f/vz;/Mh;3-44-2017 ehs; 23/06/2017 bghUs; : bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp ? kz;lyk; ? tUtha; Jiw ? tzpf tshf';fspy; mike;Js;s filfSf;F xd;gJ Mz;Lfs; Fj;jif fhyk; Kot[w;wJ ? re;ij tpiy mog;gilapy; ? kd;wj;jpd; mDkjp bgw;W thlif kW eph;zak; bra;jJ ? rk;ke;jkhf/ ghh;it : 1/murhiz (epiy) vz;/92. efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tH';fy; (e/ep?4) Jiw. ehs;/03/07/2007/ 2/kd;w jPh;khd vz;/094-2017. ehs;/21/02/2017/ 3/j';fspd; foj ehs;/ N09-N123-099-F42 bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp. kz;lyk;?9y; mike;Js;s tzpf tshf';fspy; cs;s filfSf;F xd;gJ Mz;Lfs; Fj;jif fhyk; Kot[w;w filfSf;F re;ij tpiy mog;gilapy; thlif kW eph;zak; bra;a Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lJ/ ghh;it?2y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;l kd;wj; jPh;khdj;jpy;. bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp tzpf tshf filfSf;F re;ij tpiy mog;gilapy; thlif kW eph;zak; bra;J jPh;khdk; epiwntw;wg;gl;lJ/ ghh;it?3y; fz;Ls;s j';fsJ fojj;jpy; nfhhpa[s;s nfhhpf;iffis ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. brd;id khefuhl;rp tzpf tshf filfSf;F thlif eph;zak; bra;a[k;nghJ re;ij tpytug;go mUfpYs;s jdpahh; filfspd; thlif xg;ge;j';fis ed;F xg;gpl;L ghprPyj;Jjhd; jw;nghija thlifia eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt ghh;it?2y; fz;l kd;w jPh;khdj;jpy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l re;ijtpiy mog;gilapyhd thlif kW eph;zaj;ij Fiwf;fnth. jpUg;gg;bgwnth KoahJ vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk;. nkw;go tzpf tshf filapid jh';fns bjhlh;e;J Vw;W elj;JtJ bjhlh;ghf. bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp re;ijtpiy mog;gilapy; eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s thlifapid Vw;Wf;bfhz;L. j';fsJ bgahpy; kW xJf;fPL bra;a[khW Mizah; mth;fS;fF Vw;g[ fojk; cldoahf mspf;ft[k;. filapd; thlif epYitj; bjhif ,Ug;gpd; mjida[k; cldoahf epYitapd;wp brYj;jplt[k; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;fz;l filapid bjhlh;e;J elj;j Koahj epiypaUf;Fkhdhy; Fj;jif xg;ge;jg;go thlif epYitj; bjhifapid brYj;jptpl;L khefuhl;rp filapid Kjd; Kjypy; thliff;F vLf;Fk; nghJ ,Ue;j epiyf;F bfhz;Lte;J cjtp tUtha; mYtyh; mth;fsplk; filapid xg;gilf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ cjtp tUtha; mYtyh;-k?9 kz;ly mYtyh;-k?9 Letter Dated 27.04.1978 :
C.P.P.(G)-M.E.STY.III 17 To ----------------------------- Thiru.D.Kanniappan, 50,000-March, 1978. 31, VI Main Road, Madras--28. From Revenue Officer, CORPORATION OF MADRAS Ripon Buildings. Park Town P.O., Madras.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.D.C.NO.G9/24789/78. Date...27-4-1978 Sir, Sub:- Market - Stall No.14, Raja Annamalai Puram - Dn.98-Allotment of. Ref:- Your letter dated 10-4-78. --
The stall No.14 at Raja Annamalaipuram is allotted to you on a monthly fee of Rs.280/-. Please arrange to pay Rs.840/- towards Security deposit and Rs.280/- towards a months advance fee for allotment of the said stall subject to ratification by Commissioner."
18. As contentions were raised by the respondent corporation, with regard to formation of the appellant association, as well as the number of members of the appellant association, we directed the learned standing counsel for Greater Corporation of Chennai to produce the file pertaining to Certificate of Registration of R.A.Puram Corporation Shopping Complex Association, registered as No.165/2017 on 17.07.2017 from the Registrar of Societies, Central Chennai and accordingly the original file pertaining to the appellant association has been produced from the Office of the Registrar of Societies. From the file, the following documents are extracted :
Form No.I - Application for the issue of certificate of Registration:
"FORM NO.I (See Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1975) APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE TAMIL NADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act.27 of 1975) From:
R.BALASUBRAMANIAN - PRESIDENT RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028 To:
The Registrar of Societies, Central Chennai, Chennai-600 014.
Sir,
1. A Society by Name RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION has been formed on 13.06.2017.
2. I enclose herewith the Memorandum and bye-laws of the Society.
3. I remit herewith a sum of Rs.2550/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred and fifty only) being the fee for the registration of the Society.
4. I am a member of the Committee of the Society.
5. I have been duly authorised on this behalf by the Committee of the Society.
6. The Society may be registered and the certificate of Registration issued.
PRESIDENT Place: Chennai Date:21.06.2017"
Form No.II - Certificate of Registration of Societies:
Form No.II (See Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978) CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE TAMIL NADU ACT, 1975 (TAMIL NADU ACT 27 OF 1975) CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES Sl. NO.: 165/2017 I hereby Certify that RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION has this day been Registered Under The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975).
Given under my hand at CHENNAI CENTRAL this 17 th day of July 2017 Seal :
Signature of the Registrar Station :
Memorandum of Society:
MEMORANDUM OF SOCIETY
1. Name of the Society : RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION
2.Office of the Society : No.18/36, III Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
3.AIMS AND OBJECTS:
I. To Monitor and co-ordinating with Corporation for all common facilities and amenities like electricity, water supplies, drainage, etc., provided or to be provided by the said premises and building complex.
II. To look after the cleanliness and lighting of the said premises and building complex.
III. To take care of the white-washing, painting etc, of the exterior of said building complex.
IV. To co-ordinate Corporation office to repair, after or otherwise deal with the said common premises of the building complex.
V. To co-ordinate corporation office related to the building complex.
VI. To employ the staff required for fulfilling the above objectives.
VII. In general to do everything for the convenience and good of the members and for the better enjoyment of the said premises and building complex.
VIII. To do all things necessary and expedient for the accomplishment of the aforesaid objects.
PRESIDENT RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
S. No. Name Designation Signature
1.
R.BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT
2. G.GOPAL RAJU VICE PRESIDENT
3. G.SATHYANARAYANAN SECRETARY 4 MANIRAJU JOINT SECRETARY
5. R.SANKAR JOINT SECRETARY
6. K.M.RAJENDRAN TREASURER
7. K.VELU EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
8. KARUPPASAMY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
9. S.CHANDRASEKAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
10. PRAKASH KUMAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
11. M.THANIKACHALAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
12. SHEIK MOHAMED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
13. P.RAVI SHANKAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
14. S.KUMAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
15. T.C.SUBBIAH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
16. S.RAJVIKRAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
17. S.GANESAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
18. K.R.PERUMAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER List of Executive Committee Members:
RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
S. No. Name Designation Signature
1.
R.BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT
2. G.GOPAL RAJU VICE PRESIDENT
3. G.SATHYANARAYANAN SECRETARY 4 MANIRAJU JOINT SECRETARY
5. R.SANKAR JOINT SECRETARY
6. K.M.RAJENDRAN TREASURER
7. K.VELU EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
8. KARUPPASAMY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
9. S.CHANDRASEKAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
10. PRAKASH KUMAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
11. M.THANIKACHALAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
12. SHEIK MOHAMED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
13. P.RAVI SHANKAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
14. S.KUMAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
15. T.C.SUBBIAH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
16. S.RAJVIKRAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
17. S.GANESAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
18. K.R.PERUMAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Form No.V "Form No.V (See Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978) Notice of Situation / Change of Situation of the Registered Office of the Society under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975)
1.Name of the Society : RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028
2.Date of Registration :
3.The Registration No. & year of Registration :
4.Presented by : R.BALASUBRAMANIAN - PRESIDENT The Registrar Societies, Chennai Central, Chennai-600 014.
Sir, RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION hereby give you notice under sub section (1) of section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) that the Registered office of the Society situated at, No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600028, Dated 13.06.2017.
PRESIDENT Place: Chennai Date: 13.06.2017"
Form No.VI "FORM NO.VI (See Rule 17 of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978) REGISTRAR MEMBERS TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (i) OF SECTION 14 OF THE TAMIL NADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION REGISTER OF MEMBERS
1. Name of the Society : RA PURAM CORPORATION SHOPPING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION No.18/36, III rd Cross Street, Corporation Shopping Complex, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028
2. Date of Registration : 13.06.2017
3.Type of Registration No. & Year of Registration. :
S. No. Name Address Occupation Date of Enrollment Date of Registration/Removal Remarks
1.
R.BALASUBRAMANIAN No.14, T1, Park Villa East Abhiramapuram 1st Street, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Business 13.06.2017
2. G.GOPAL RAJU No.36/11, Canal Bank Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.
Business 13.06.2017
3. G.SATHYANARAYANAN No.16, Visuvanathan st. Srinivasa Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Business 13.06.2017 4 MANIRAJU No.6, 1st Main Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028.
Business 13.06.2017
5. R.SANKAR No.26/4, III rd Cross Road, Abiramapuram, Chennai - 18.
Business 13.06.2017
6. K.M.RAJENDRAN No.364, K.V.B.Garden, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.
Business 13.06.2017
7. K.VELU No.1/642, Venkatesan Street, Jallampettai, Medavakkam, Chennai - 600 100 Business 13.06.2017
8. KARUPPASAMY No.34, Raja Street, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028.
Business 13.06.2017
9. S.CHANDRASEKAR No.10, First Street, Varadhapuram, Kottur, Chennai - 600 084.
Business 13.06.2017
10. PRAKASH KUMAR Flat No-1, Ground Floor, "Sapthagiri" 29/8, Canal Bank Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 28. Business 13.06.2017
11. M.THANIKACHALAM No.2, Katta Bomman Street, G.S.Nagar, R.A.Puram, Ch-28.
Business 13.06.2017
12. SHEIK MOHAMED Flat No.107, 1st Floor, Eldams Square, Alwarpet, Ch - 18.
Business 13.06.2017
13. P.RAVI SHANKAR No.6, P.V.Kovil 1st Street, Royapet, Pudupet, Chennai - 600 014. Business 13.06.2017
14. S.KUMAR No.219, K.V.B. Garden, Kamarajar Salai, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Business 13.06.2017
15. T.C.SUBBIAH No.118, II nd Floor, 4th New Bethaniya Nagar, Valarasavakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Business 13.06.2017
16. S.RAJVIKRAM No.6/13A, 8th Street, Saraswathy Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088. Business 13.06.2017
17. S.GANESAN No.76, Kattabomman Street, Govindasami nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Business 13.06.2017
18. K.R.PERUMAL No.2/16, Chandran Street, Vetri Nagar, Bashyam Reddy Colony, Perambur, Chennai - 600 082. Business 13.06.2017
19. It is seen from the extract from the files there are only 18 members in the association. But the appellant, at page Nos.37 to 41 of the typed set of papers has furnished a list, as if there are 101 members, which is false.
20. Appellant has suppressed the receipt of the notice dated 12.06.2018, extracted supra, and only during the course of hearing, conceded receipt. Writ Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a court of equity. When there is a case of suppression and falsehood, equity cannot be extended.
21. In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
12. .......It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.
13. In Moody v. Cox [(1917) 2 Ch. 71: (1916-17) All ER Rep 548 (CA)], it was held: (All ER pp. 555 I-556 D) "When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression clean hands is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for."
14. In Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms:
1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed.
*** 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiffs fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design.
The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiffs demerits.
22. Validity of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 cannot be collaterally assailed in this writ action, filed for a Mandamus seeking a direction to the responders therein to consider the writ petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2017 and to receive 15% enhancement once in 3 years instead of 10% fixed earlier from the members of the writ petitioner association after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner association.
23. In P.Muthusamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 2014 (5) MLJ 129, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at paragraphs Nos.21 and 22, held as follows:-
21. The object of letting out the shops is to collect more revenue for the respondent-Municipality, which is meant to be used for welfare measures. The Government Orders, as narrated above, are very specific about the purpose of auction followed by lease/licence. Since the transactions are commercial in nature, the petitioners, being licensees, cannot insist that the rent, which as they think, just and proper alone is liable to be paid. Since the licence is to be granted by the respondent-Municipality, while making offer, the said authority can impose its own terms in accordance with law. While accepting the said offer, the petitioners cannot insist that the condition attached therein cannot be imposed. A perusal of the Government Orders referred to above as well as the orders impugned make it clear that the rent has been fixed based upon the prevailing market value and not otherwise. What has been given by way of extension to an existing licensee was only a concession. The subsequent extension has been made during the pendency of the writ petitions. The said decision was made in view of the undertaking given by the licensees. An undertaking was given in connection with the payment as well as on the withdrawal of the writ petitions. The Government orders also state that in the event of non compliance of the conditions imposed including the payment of appropriate rent, a licensee is liable to be removed.
22.The resolution has been passed after making detailed discussion and it was also passed as a consequence of the earlier order dated 14.12.2012 by which rent was fixed. Since the said rent so fixed was not paid, the respondent-Municipality was made to pass the impugned resolution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned resolution has been unilaterally passed and as such, the said decision is in accordance with the Government Orders passed, which confer the power on the respondent-Municipality to take action towards the eviction from the shops in the event of non payment of rent payable. The extraction of the related paragraphs of the resolution would clearly show that relevant materials have been taken into consideration while passing the same. The respondent-Municipality has got its own duty and obligation to perform. Appointments will have to be made to the public office and salaries will have to be paid. Money will have to be spent towards the welfare measures. The assessment made also indicates that the proposed auction would bring more money. The best way to get the maximum revenue is by way of public auction. This will also create a level playing field enabling others to participate along with the petitioners/licensees. Therefore, we do not find any arbitrariness in the action of the respondent-Municipality. The reliance made by the petitioners on the communication dated 12.03.2009 cannot be accepted since it cannot overreach the Government Orders which speak about removal when conditions are not complied with. The fact that the Commissioner of Municipal Administration directed the respondent-Municipality to fix the market rent as the rent payable based upon the Government Orders which in turn was complied with would also show that there is no quarrel with the position that the market rent shall be the basis for the fixation of the rent payable by the licensees. In any case, the petitioners, being the defaulters, cannot contend that they should be allowed to continue forever. As the orders impugned have been passed by taking into consideration of the relevant materials, we do not find any room for interference.
24. In W.A.Nos.1508 to 1510 of 2014, dated 11.03.2015, in the matter of S.Murugan and two others Vs. The Chairman, Sathyamangalam Municipality, Erode District and another, the petitioners/appellants therein, challenged the resolution of the Municipality, and the consequential auction/tender published. They also prayed for continuation as licencees, the writ petitions were dismissed.
25. Being aggrieved they filed W.A.No.1508 to 1510 of 2014, contentions were made by the municipality that the Appellants have no legal right to challenge the power of the Municipality to cancel their licences and to seek for continuation possession of the premises forever. Municipality has further contended after the expiry of 9 years lease period, there is no right to seek for automatic renewal of licences issued in their favour.
26. In the case of Punjai Puliyampatti Municipality Shopping Complex Lessee Welfare Association, Erode District Vs. The Commissioner of Municipalities Administration, Chennai, in W.A.No.339 of 2016, dated 29.03.2016, reported in 2016 3 MLJ 698, a Hon'ble Division Bench considered a case of an association challenging auction of shops. On the aspect as to whether the shop owners as an association or individual member, have any vested right to question the validity of auction, the Hon'ble Division Bench, after considering decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, at paragraphs Nos.20 to 30, held as follows:-
20.The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Municipality cites the Division Bench decision of this Court in P.Muthusamy V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai and another reported in (2014) 5 MLJ 129 [where one of us S.K.A., J. is a member] wherein it is held as follows:
The petitioners have been given only a licence to run the shops. Just because the word #lease# has been mentioned, a licence cannot ipso facto be converted into a lease. Admittedly, the licence issued has fixed terms. Therefore, the Petitioners do not have a legal or a vested right to continue in occupation for ever.
The object of letting out the shops is to collect more revenue for the Respondent/Municipality, which is meant to be used for welfare measures. The resolution has been passed after making detailed discussion and it was also passed as a consequence of the earlier order by which rent was fixed. Since the said rent so fixed was not paid, the Respondent/Municipality was made to pass the impugned resolution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned resolution has been unilaterally passed and as such, the said decision is in accordance with the Government Orders passed, which confer the power on the Respondent/Municipality to take action towards the eviction from the shops in the event of non-payment of rent payable. Respondent-Municipality has got its own duty and obligation to perform. Appointments will have to be made to the public office and salaries will have to be paid. Money will have to be spent towards the welfare measures. The assessment made also indicates that the proposed auction would bring more money. The best way to get the maximum revenue is by way of public auction. Therefore, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the action of the Respondent/Municipality. The Petitioners, being the defaulters, cannot content that they should be allowed to continue forever.
21. At this juncture, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another V. The State of West Bengal and Others reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1109 at Special Page 1133 at paragraph 39 wherein it is observed as follows:
39. On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established: State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism.
22. Also, this Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Auto Stores and Others V. Indian Oil Corporation and Others reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1031 at Special Page 1032, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as follows:
The State acts in its executive power under Art.298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercise of power. Therefore, the action of State organ can be checked under Art.14. Every action of the State executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Art.14 of the Constitution. If a Governmental action even in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. Rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination. It is well settled and there can be #malice in law#. Existence of such "malice in law" is part of the dimension of the rule of relevance and reason as well as the rule of fair play in action.
23. Furthermore, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Science Forum and Others V. Union of India and Another reported in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 405, at Special Page 409, wherein it is laid down as follows:
The question of awarding licences and contracts does not depend merely on the competitive rates offered; several factors have to be taken into consideration by an expert body which is more familiar with the intricacies of that particular trade. While granting licences a statutory authority or the body so constituted should have latitude to select the best offers on terms and conditions to be prescribed taking into account the economic and social interest of the nation. Unless any party aggrieved satisfies the court that the ultimate decision in respect of the selection has been vitiated, normally courts should be reluctant to interfere with the same.
24. Moreover, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision in A.Sathar V. The District Collector, Coimbatore and another reported in AIR 1998 Madras 217 and 218, wherein at paragraph 2, it is observed as follows:
..... We are of the view that the appellant has no vested right to continue in occupation of the premises in question. Admittedly, the premises in question belong to the second respondent / panchayat which is entitled to lease out the properties owned by it by public auction. As rightly pointed by the learned single judge, properties owned by the Municipality are also a source of revenue to the Municipality and the interest of the Muncipality has to be balanced as against the interest of the shop owner lessee. It cannot be disputed that the lessees may also be entitled to a fair term and the Government had, therefore, allowed the lessees to continue their occupation for a second term. As already seen the appellant was given extension of lease period from time to time from the year 1988 to 31.02.1997 on terms. Even the last lease was extended for three years by enhancing the rent by 30 percent. Under these circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the appellant to ask for the extension of the lease for further term of three years from 1-4-1997 to 31.03.2000 on an enhancement of 15 per cent of the previous rent. The extension granted earlier by the Panchayat, to the appellant would not meant that the appellant is entitled to continue in possession of the premises in question for ever by paying ridiculously low rent. We are of the view that the extension of the lease to the appellant is against the interest of the Panchayat. As already noticed the rental income from the properties owned by the Panchayat is one of the sources of income to the Panchayat. Therefore, the interest of the Panchayat cannot be jeoparadised by permitting the appellant to continue in possession of the premises in question at the enhanced rate of 15 per cent as prayed for. There are absolutely no merits in this writ appeal and the same is dismissed."
25. Apart from that, this Court relevantly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagar Nigam Meerut V. AL Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd., and Others reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases at page 382 and at special pages 384 & 385, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and laid down as follows:
It is now a well-settled principle of law that having regard to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, State within the meaning of Article 12 thereof cannot distribute its largesse at its own sweet will. The court can ensure that the statutory functions are not carried out at the whims and caprices of the officers of the Government / local body in an arbitrary manner. But the court cannot itself take over functions. Not finding any arbitrariness, discrimination or malafides, the High Court had no justification for interfering with the advertisement inviting fresh offers for the contract in question.
All contracts by the Government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible persons will have an opportunity to bid in the auction, and there is total transparency. This is an essential requirement in a democracy, where the people are supreme, and all official acts must be actuated by the public interest, and should inspire public confidence. The Supreme Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. The State or its instrumentalities should not give contracts by private negotiation but by open public auction / tender after wide publicity. Although the Nagar Nigam had advertised the contract, the High Court has directed that it should be given for 10 years to a particular party (Respondent 1). The contract had not only been given by way of private negotiation, but the negotiation had been carried out by the High Court itself, which is impermissible.
Having regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation, but normally that should not be done as it shakes the public confidence. However, in rare and exceptional cases, for instance during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the Government; where the procurement is possible from a single source only; where the supplier or contractor has exclusive rights in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists; where the auction was held on several dates but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc., this normal rule may be departed from and such contracts may be awarded through private negotiations.
26. There is no two opinion of a vital fact that the 2nd Respondent/Municipality is the competent/appropriate authority to determine what rent a particular shop of the Panchayat may fetch and it is well settled principle in Law that a lease cannot be extended much to the detriment of panchayat and in any event, the panchayat cannot be a loser on any score.
27. It cannot be forgotten that bearing in mind Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 cannot distribute its 'Largesse' at its sweet will and pleasure.
28. Besides the above, this Court significantly points out the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1471 of 2014 (between C.Vinoba and others V. The Commissioner, Palladam Municipality, Palladam, Thiruppur District and Others) wherein at paragraph 5, it is observed as follows:
5.There is no dispute that the rent paid by the appellants as compared with the present market rent is nominal. It is also not in dispute that under G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply department dated 03.07.2007, the appellants have a right to continue for a maximum period of nine years on a lease of three years subject to renewal. The appellants have been occupying the shops for a very long period on payment of the rent of a meagre amount. Thus, the appellants cannot claim renewal as a matter of right. The Municipality has several functions to perform for the welfare of the people of the locality. The collection of market rent is one of the source of income of the municipality. Thus, the municipality cannot be permitted to allot shops on nominal rent without assessing the market value of the same. It is well certain that auction is the best mode of allotment of shops.
29. As far as the present case is concerned, the filing of the Writ Petition by the Appellant/Association seeking to quash the auction-cum-tender notification issued by the 2nd Respondent/Municipality dated 27.11.2015, in and by which, the Municipality had brought the lease hold right of the 71 shops in auction (owned by the Municipality within its municipal limits etc.) is not per se maintainable because of the latent and patent reason that an Association cannot in Law espouse the cause of individual members/shop owners/lessees/ licensees. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition sans merits. Even otherwise, the individual shopkeepers of the Appellant/Association do not have either a legal or vested right to continue in occupation of the shops belonging to the 2nd Respondent/Municipality. The paramount interest of the 2nd Respondent/Municipality cannot be put to peril by permitting the shopkeepers of the Appellant/Association to continue in possession of the premises in the subject matter in issue at a increased rate of 15%. No wonder, the rule of Law requires competitive bidding which paves way for obtaining a paper price in relation to a public property which is in the nature of a trust. Therefore, the public property is to be put into auction by inviting tender so as to enable the Municipality to obtain the highest offer in a fair and transparent manner. Only then, the public welfare of a particular Town Panchayat can augment its revenue to the optimum level, as opined by this Court. Looking at from any angle, the Appellant is not entitled to any relief in the Writ Appeal filed by it. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails.
30. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27. Judgement rendered in C.Vinoba's case, referred to in Punjai Puliyampatti's case has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos.34543/2014 dated 18.12.2014, as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Special leave petition is dismissed.
28. In W.A.No.908 of 2016, contention of the appellant therein was that there was an exorbitant rise in the rental based on the alleged prevailing market rate. Reliance has been made on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1441 to 1444 of 1991, dated 23.04.1991, Erode Perundhu Nilaya Viayaparigal Salem Municipal Shops Lessees Association etc., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, to the effect that enhancement shall be 15% once in three years, and further contention has been made that when the appellant was ready to pay rental at 15% more than the existing amount, the amount sought to be demanded was exorbitant and not acceptable.
29. In W.A.No.908 of 2016 Reliance was also made in the decision in Sunita Rani and others v. Sri Chand and others, (2009) 14 (Addl.) SCR 295 and contended that in a writ petition filed by the landlord against an order of rejecting his application for eviction, the High Court shall not assume the authority to enhance the existing rent, as it is not open to the High Court to summarily strip the tenant of the statutory protection and enhance the existing rent in a completely unguided and subjective manner.
30. Per contra in W.A.No.908 of 2016, Municipality has contended that the appellants were praying low rent for many years and reliance has been made on the decision in P.Muthusamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, case reported in 2014 (5) MLJ 129.
31. Adverting to the facts of the said case, at Paragraph No.7, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.908 of 2016, dated 21.07.2016, held as follows:-
7. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, not only the interest of the Municipality being paramount is to be taken into consideration, but also the interest of the licensees also has to be taken into consideration. Hence we observe that if any further negotiations are possible between the appellant and the third respondent-Municipality for arriving at the rental, the said process can be looked into or otherwise, the Municipality is at liberty to go for auction, so that the appellant would not have any vested interest to claim as a matter of right to fix a particular rental. But the appellant also has an option to bid in the auction in order to select the highest bidder. Till such time the finality of the bids takes place, in the event such an auction is held, the appellant may be allowed to continue in the shop in question. In the event of any failure in the negotiations between the appellant and the respondent-Municipality in respect of the rental, then, as indicated by the learned single Judge, it is for the third respondent Municipality to go for auction, wherein the appellant can also participate, and take the result for the benefit of it. With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.11608 to 11610 of 2016 are closed. No costs. However in the event of failure it is for the appellant to vacate & hand over possession in 3 months from the said decision to the highest bidder.
32. In W.A.(MD) No.1058 to 1086 of 2017, dated 09.08.2017, in the case of C.Krishnamoorthy Vs. The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, Virudhunagar District, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
All these appellants are the erstwhile licensees being the beneficiary of the Government Order having got extension from the period fixed at the first instance. By the impugned orders, a concession has been made by the respondent to the appellants permitting them to continue by way of extension in their respective shops on their acceptance of the rent fixed based upon the fixation by the Fee Fixation Committee as per the instruction of Commissioner of Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 followed by the proceedings of the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli, dated 28.03.2017. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions placing reliance upon the Division Bench Judgement of this Court. Accordingly, it was held that the appellants did not have vested right being mere licensees over fixation of the rent. Challenging the same, these writ appeals have been filed by the appellants.
2. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the issue is with respect to the fixation of Rent alone. Such fixation cannot be arbitrary, apart from being unilateral. Therefore, the orders impugned will have to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that what has been given to the appellants only an way of offer by way of concession. The appellants are erstwhile licensees and thus, do not have any vested right. For making an offer, there is no question of hearing the case of the appellants. The rent has been fixed by taking into consideration of the relevant materials and as per the decision of Fee Committee. The question of Public interest as against the private interest has to be seen. The revenue augmented will have to be used for public activities. The auction is fixed tomorrow i.e., on 10.08.2017. Already 6 shops have been auctioned. The upset price was exceeded and it was accordingly confirmed in favour of 16 new licensees. They have paid the auction amount which is beyond the upset price fixed. Hence, no interference is required in the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the appellants do not have any vested right and their period of licence already got over. They did not have any say in the fixation of rent. The rent fixed forms part of an offer. It is for the appellants to accept or to leave it. The auction is fixed tomorrow i.e., on 10.08.2017. Therefore, it is for the appellants to take part in the said auction. After all, the ultimate interest is that of the respondent, which is a public authority catering to the needs of general public. It is nothing but a commercial activity intended to augment more revenue. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, still the auctions are confirmed, the appellants are permitted to continue in the respective shops subject to payment of old rent along with arrears, if any. Liberty is given to the appellants to take part in the auction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
33. Further contention has also been made there was suppression of the appellant's participation in the auction, and failure to disclose the same in the appeals. Municipality has further contended that auction was to augment the income of the Municipality, for the welfare of public. On the above facts, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, considering the doctrine of Judicial Review and when Mandamus could be issued at Paragraph Nos. 9 to 6, held as follows:-
9. It cannot be said that by way of 'Judicial Review', a Court of Law is not expected to act as a Court of appeal while examining an administrative decision and to render a finding whether such decision could have been taken otherwise based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, if the decision of the authority confines to reasonableness, then, it is not the function of a Court of Law to look further into its merits. No doubt, a Court of Law can interfere only if the authority acts beyond its power.
10.It is to be borne in mind that the grant of an order of 'Mandamus' is, as a general rule, a matter for the discretion of Court. It is not granted as of right and it is not issued as a matter of course. The object of 'Mandamus' is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. S.B.Vohra, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1402.
11.It is to be pointed out that a 'Writ of Mandamus' is a high prerogative Writ of a most wider remedial nature. A Writ of Mandamus may be issued in favour of a person who establishes legal right in him. The main function of Mandamus is to compel action. In fact, it neither creates nor confers power to act. In reality, a Mandamus cannot be issued to substitute the Judgment or discretion of the Court for that of authority against whom it is issued. It is to be remembered that a Court of Law cannot take a decision which in law is required to be taken by a statutory authority.
12.It is to be noted that the relief to be granted in favour of a particular party who approaches the Writ Court is certainly an equitable and discretionary one, in the considered opinion of this Court. Further, the Municipal Council had passed the resolutions by following the procedures established under relevant rules and only thereafter, the auction was conducted on 07.08.2014.
13.Suffice it for this Court to point out that majority of the Licensees of shops numbering 84 had faced the auction and as such, the Appellants also do stand on the same pedestal.
14.At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellants had suppressed the fact that they participate in the auction held on 08.10.2014. In fact, the Appellants were the successful bidders and therefore, they are liable to pay the respective bid amounts from 01.09.2014. However, the Appellants are paying only Rs.2,780/- (in W.A.No.1508/2014), Rs.3,998/- (in W.A.No.1509/2014) and Rs.4,935/- (in W.A.No.1510/ 2014) and they paid the same till September 2014. Moreover, when they are the successful bidders, they are liable to pay the highest bid amount from 01.09.2014 and in fact, the Appellant in W.A.No.1510/ 2014 had executed the necessary documents and conditions and he is in possession as licensee. Also, when the Appellants offer were accepted by the Municipality and when they had affixed their signatures in the auction registered and as per Condition No.7 of the Auction Notice, when they were called upon to pay an additional sum of 12 months' highest bid amount on or before 25.10.2014, they had failed to pay the amounts till date.
15.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the Appellants had not divulged the fact that they took part in the auction held on 18.10.2014 and they being the successful bidders, the Writ Appeals filed by them are an otiose one, besides the same being devoid of merits, in the considered opinion of this Court.
16.In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
34. Contention that there are no norms or guidelines in G.O.No.92, and therefore, the rent fixed is in the higher side, cannot be accepted. Rent has been fixed after 9 years, after coming into force of the said G.O. About 11 tenants have paid the arrears of rent. But contending inter alia that the association represents all the members, others have not paid even the arrears of rent, but squatting over the premises of the corporation. Contention that the committee has not been constituted, as per Resolution No.94 of 2017 dated 21.02.2017, cannot be now permitted to be raised, in the writ petition filed, for a simple mandamus.
35. Respondent-Corporation has explained, as to how, rent has been raised and the writ Court has elaborately considered the same.
36. In the light of the above decisions and discussion, we are of the view that the appellant has not made a case warranting interferences with the order of the Writ Court. There are no merits in this appeal. Hence, W.A.No.1204 of 2018 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
[S.M.K.,J.] [V.B.S.,J.]
26.07.2018
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
kk/dm
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
kk/dm
W.A.No.1204 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.9700 of 2018
26.07.2018