In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 21-11-2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.1906 of 2003 M.Thyagarajan .. Petitioner Vs The Commissioner Kovilpatti Municipality Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District .. Respondent Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the respondent herein in his Rc.No.648/A4/2001, dated 13.12.2002 and to quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 13.12.2002 and consequently direct the respondent herein to refix the rent at a reasonable rate by having a marginal increase of 15% from the existing rate of rent. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan For Respondent : Mr.T.Vengadesh O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that he had participated in the pubic auction conducted by the respondent Municipality in the year, 1996, relating to the shop bearing No.27, in Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Daily Market, Kovilpatty. Pursuant to the said auction, the petitioner had been allotted the said shop, in which he is running a vegetable shop, on a monthly rental of Rs.200/-. In the year, 1998, the respondent Municipality had demanded an increase in rent at the rate of 15% over and above the then existing rent. Accordingly, the rent was revised from the year, 1998, and fixed at Rs.230/- per month. Thereafter, the respondents had not revised the rent till the current financial year. However, for the current financial year, the respondent had arbitrarily increased the rent to Rs.800/- per month, which is nearly 4 times higher than the existing rent. When the petitioners had paid the monthly rent for the month of December, 2002, payable in the month of January, 2003, the respondent Municipality had issued a rent receipt for the month of December, 2002, wherein it was noted that the rent had been revised from the 1st of August, 2001, at the rate of Rs.800 per month and that the arrears payable from the 1st of August, 2001, till the month of February, 2003, was to the tune of Rs.11,060/-
3. The petitioner had further stated that no show cause notice had been issued to him before the rent had been revised. The respondent had, unilaterally, increased the rent in an arbitrary manner and it is contrary to the guidelines prescribed by the state Government and the Commissioner of Municipal Administration. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order of this Court made in M.K.M. GEEYAVUDEEN Vs. COMMISSIONER ((2008) 1 MLJ 682) and had submitted that the said decision had become final. Paragraph 26 of the said order reads as follows:
26. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned notices are set aside and the respondent Municipality is directed
“(a) to determine the fair rent for each of the shops taken on lease by the petitioners, separately by adopting the same principles as laid down under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for fixation of fair rent.
(b) After determining the fair rent on a provisional basis, by adopting the above method, the respondent shall serve notices on the writ petitioners, enclosing copies of the working sheets containing details of the calculations so made and call upon the lessees to furnish their objections in writing.
(c)After the lessees submit their objections, to the notices so issued by the respondent, the respondent shall pass final orders fixing the fair rent. It is made clear that such fixation of fair rent, shall be with effect from 1.4.2007, since the exercise for enhancement of rent was undertaken by the Municipality with effect from 1.4.2007.
(d) It is also made clear that the lessees should furnish whatever documents they rely upon, for the purpose of arriving at the fair rent for the building, along with their objections, so that the exercise of determining the fair rent can be completed by the Municipality at the earliest.”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the ratio in the above mentioned order of this Court applies to the present case and therefore, the writ petition is to be allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 13.12.2002, and by issuing a direction as found in paragraph 26 of the said order.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 13.12.2002, is set aside and the respondent Municipality is directed to pass appropriate orders, fixing the rent for the shop in question, following the directions issued by this Court, in paragraph 26 of its decision in M.K.M. GEEYAVUDEEN Vs. COMMISSIONER ((2008) 1 MLJ 682). Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
lan