{"id":268833,"date":"2007-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-15T15:18:31","modified_gmt":"2016-09-15T09:48:31","slug":"m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 20\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN\n\n\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4420 of 2007,\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4421 to 4423 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs)\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4470 to 4482\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007 (All WPs)\nand M.P.Nos.3\/2007 in W.P.4478 & 4479\/2007\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4572 to 4577\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007 (All WPs)\nand M.P.Nos.2 of 2007 in W.P.4574 & 4576\/2007\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4585 to 4592\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs)\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4593 to 4599\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs)\nand M.P.No.2\/2007 in W.P.No.4599\/2007\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4600 to 4608\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs)\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4615 to 4622\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs)\nand M.P.Nos.2\/2007 in W.P.Nos.4621 & 4622\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4641 to 4649\/2007 & M.Ps.1 to 3\/2007(All WPs)\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4779 to 4783\/ 2007 & M.Ps.1\/2007 (All WPs)\nand M.P.No.2 of 2007\n\n\nM.K.M.Geeyavudeen\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4420\/2007\n\nS.Natarajan                \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4421\/2007\n\nS.Abdul Rahim\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4421\/2007\n\nM.Asan Mohammed\t\t  \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4422\/2007\n\nS.M.Abdul Raheem\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4470\/2007\n\nSubramanian\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4471\/2007\n\nP.K.M.Shahul Hameed \t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.Ps.4472 & 4473\/2007\n\nAsan Mohamed\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4474\/2007\n\nM.Parisha Begam\t\t  \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4475\/2007\n\nMohamed Ali Jinna\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.Ps.4476 & 4477\/2007\n\nR.Syed Saleem\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4478\/2007\n\nRahamadulla\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4479\/2007\n\nJahir Hussain\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4480\/2007\n\nR.Mahalingam\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4481\/2007\n\nM.Krishnaveni\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4482\/2007\n\nChandrasekar\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4572\/2007\n\nSundara Mahaligam\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4573\/2007\n\nParimalavani\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4574\/2007\n\nSubbiah\t\t\t      \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4575\/2007\n\nApurva Asari\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4576\/2007\n\nA.Sakthivel\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4577\/2007\n\nE.Sheik Dawood\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4585\/2007\n\nG.Ragavan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4586\/2007\n\nS.Sakthi\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4587\/2007\n\nK.Rengasamy\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4588\/2007\n\nS.Muthu\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4589\/2007\n\nRamaiah\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4590\/2007\n\nM.Pitchai\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4591\/2007\n\nRaheemkan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4592\/2007\n\nR.Ambayee\t\t\t... \t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4593\/2007\n\nN.O.Mohamed\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4594\/2007\n\nD.Mani\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4595\/2007\n\nValliammal\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4596\/2007\n\nR.Selvaraj\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4597\/2007\n\nIlanjiyam                  \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4598\/2007\n\nAbdul Kabar\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4599\/2007\n\nC.Nagarajan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4600\/2007\n\nP.Ameer Batsha\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4601\/2007\n\nR.Ramalingam\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4602\/2007\n\nThavamani\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4603\/2007\n\nK.Appan\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4604\/2007\n\nM.Namachivayam\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4605\/2007\n\nK.Arungulalingam\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4606\/2007\n\nE.M.E.Noor Mohamed\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4607\/2007\n\nFarook\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4608\/2007\n\nA.Sebastian\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4615\/2007\n\nM.R.Chinnakannu\t\t  \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4616\/2007\n\nA.Shajakan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4617\/2007\n\nM.Alagappan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4618\/2007\n\nM.Chidambaram\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4619\/2007\n\nM.Muthu\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4620\/2007\n\nS.Thayalan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4621\/2007\n\nM.Renganathan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4622\/2007\n\nS.Arumugam\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4641\/2007\n\nK.Dhanalakshmi\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4642\/2007\n\nT.Rajendran\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4643\/2007\n\nMuthukarppan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4644\/2007\n\nRajendran\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4645\/2007\n\nM.Perumal\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4646\/2007\n\nA.Periasamy\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4647\/2007\n\nSheik Hussain\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4648\/2007\n\nP.Abubakkar\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4649\/2007\n\nP.Dhanabal\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4779\/2007\n\nP.Malaiyandi Asari\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4780\/2007\n\nP.Azhagu\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4781\/2007\n\nV.Gopalan\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4782\/2007\n\nM.O.V.K.Abdul Jabber\t \t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.4783\/2007\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner,\t\t...\t\tRespondent in all W.Ps.\nPudukkottai Municipality,\nPudukkottai.\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\nPRAYER in W.Ps.4420 & 4423\/2007: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226<\/a> of the\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus calling upon the respondent to produce the records relating to the\nnotice dated 30.04.2007 in Na.Ka.No.17212\/06\/A4 of the respondent, quash the\nsame and consequently direct the respondent to renew the lease in favour of the\npetitioner in respect of shop Nos.6 & 1 respectively North Chandaipettai,\nPudukkottai for the period from 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 by increasing the rent\nby 15% over and above the existing rent.\nPRAYER in W.Ps.4421 & 4422\/2007: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226<\/a> of the\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus calling upon the respondent to produce the records relating to the\nnotice dated 30.04.2007 in Na.Ka.No.17212\/06\/A4 of the respondent, quash the\nsame and consequently direct the respondent to renew the lease in favour of the\npetitioner in respect of shop Nos.20 and 19 respectively Weekly Market, East\nside vacant site, Pudukkottai for the period from 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 by\nincreasing the rent by 15% over and above the existing rent.\n\n\n!For Petitioners  \t \t...\tMr.R.P.Ramachandran\n\t\n\nFor Petitioners\nIn W.P.4470 to 4482\/07\t\t...\tMr.D.Rajakittu for\n\t\t\t\t\tMs.AL.Gandhimathi\t\n\n\n^For Respondent\tin All WPs \t...\tMr.P.Srinivas\n\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n\n\tAll these writ petitions have been filed by the lessees  of various shops\nowned by the Pudukkottai Municipality, challenging individual communications\nissued to the petitioners enhancing the monthly rent for the shops, for the\npurpose of grant of renewal of the leases for a period of 3 years from\n01.04.2007.\n\n\t2.Heard Mr.R.P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioners in all\nthese writ petitions and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel for the\nrespondent.\n\n\t3.The enhancement of monthly rent for the shops in question is challenged\nby the petitioners on the ground that the enhancement is exorbitant and that the\nfixation has been made in an arbitrary manner in violation of the Government\ninstructions prescribing an increase of 15% over and above the existing rent.\nThe enhancement is sought to be defended by the Municipality on the ground that\nthe Municipal Council passed a resolution on 29.03.2007, resolving to enhance\nthe rent for all the shops whose leases became due for renewal and that the\nmonthly rent was determined on the basis of the market rate of rent prevailing\nin the area.\n\n\t4.A perusal of the impugned notices shows two things namely-\n\t(a) that the existing rent has been enhanced manifold; and\n\t(b) that the enhancement has not been made in an uniform pattern for all\nthe shops.\n\n\t5.The above two facts can be easily appreciated from the following Tabular\nForm.\n\nS.No.\nW.P.No.\nShop No.\nExisting Rent\nRevised  Rent\n1\n4420 of 2007\n6\n328\n4800\n2\n4421 of 2007\n20\n70\n1386\n3\n4422 of 2007\n19\n139\n900\n4\n4423 of 2007\n1\n116\n1575\n5\n4470 of 2007\n5\n141\n1080\n6\n4471 of 2007\n8\n134\n1350\n7\n4472 of 2007\n13\n100\n1350\n8\n4473 of 2007\n14\n98\n1350\n9\n4474 of 2007\n1\n194\n2250\n10\n4475 of 2007\n7\n125\n1350\n11\n4476 of 2007\n11\n105\n1350\n12\n4477 of 2007\n10\n130\n1350\n13\n4478 of 2007\n2\n87\n1512\n14\n4479 of 2007\n1\n84\n1512\n15\n4480 of 2007\n2\n170\n2250\n16\n4481 of 2007\n1\n152\n1200\n17\n4482 of 2007\n2\n152\n1200\n18\n4572 of 2007\n3\n60\n750\n19\n4573 of 2007\n1\n153\n2925\n20\n4574 of 2007\n39\n125\n5460\n21\n4575 of 2007\n2\n26\n1380\n22\n4576 of 2007\n53\n58\n3276\n23\n4577 of 2007\n12\n138\n2700\n24\n4585 of 2007\n2\n43\n720\n25\n4586 of 2007\n-\n<\/pre>\n
188<\/span>
\n2100<\/span>
\n26<\/span>
\n4587 of 2007
\n1<\/span>
\n215<\/span>
\n2520<\/span>
\n27<\/span>
\n4588 of 2007
\n3<\/span>
\n226<\/span>
\n4800<\/span>
\n28<\/span>
\n4589 of 2007
\n9<\/span>
\n76<\/span>
\n5568<\/span>
\n29<\/span>
\n4590 of 2007
\n4<\/span>
\n84<\/span>
\n2400<\/span>
\n30<\/span>
\n4591 of 2007
\n5<\/span>
\n292<\/span>
\n4050<\/span>
\n31<\/span>
\n4592 of 2007
\n1<\/span>
\n34<\/span>
\n1008<\/span>
\n32<\/span>
\n4593 of 2007
\n16<\/span>
\n127<\/span>
\n2160<\/span>
\n33<\/span>
\n4594 of 2007
\n10<\/span>
\n199<\/span>
\n5700<\/span>
\n34<\/span>
\n4595 of 2007
\n48<\/span>
\n62<\/span>
\n3978<\/span>
\n35<\/span>
\n4596 of 2007
\n27<\/span>
\n55<\/span>
\n7776<\/span>
\n36<\/span>
\n4597 of 2007
\n1<\/span>
\n407<\/span>
\n2070<\/span>
\n37<\/span>
\n4598 of 2007
\n1<\/span>
\n65<\/span>
\n2625<\/span>
\n38<\/span>
\n4599 of 2007
\n20<\/span>
\n83<\/span>
\n4212<\/span>
\n39<\/span>
\n4600 of 2007
\n24<\/span>
\n49<\/span>
\n5103<\/span>
\n40<\/span>
\n4601 of 2007
\n2<\/span>
\n118<\/span>
\n2400<\/span>
\n41<\/span>
\n4602 of 2007
\n6<\/span>
\n138<\/span>
\n3645<\/span>
\n42<\/span>
\n4603 of 2007
\n3<\/span>
\n130<\/span>
\n4800<\/span>
\n43<\/span>
\n4604 of 2007
\n4<\/span>
\n45<\/span>
\n3000<\/span>
\n44<\/span>
\n4605 of 2007\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
85<\/span>
\n3000<\/span>
\n45<\/span><\/p>\n
4606 of 2007
\n22<\/span>
\n84<\/span>
\n5346<\/span>
\n46<\/span>
\n4607 of 2007
\n23<\/span>
\n103<\/span>
\n6318<\/span>
\n47<\/span>
\n4608 of 2007
\n17<\/span>
\n59<\/span>
\n3600<\/span>
\n48<\/span>
\n4615 of 2007
\n32<\/span>
\n151<\/span>
\n4788<\/span>
\n49<\/span>
\n4616 of 2007
\n14<\/span>
\n31<\/span>
\n624<\/span>
\n50<\/span>
\n4617 of 2007
\n30<\/span>
\n133<\/span>
\n3159<\/span>
\n51<\/span>
\n4618 of 2007
\n32A
\n150<\/span>
\n4284<\/span>
\n52<\/span>
\n4619 of 2007
\n31<\/span>
\n37<\/span>
\n6552<\/span>
\n53<\/span>
\n4620 of 2007
\n18<\/span>
\n40<\/span>
\n3060<\/span>
\n54<\/span>
\n4621 of 2007
\n3<\/span>
\n200<\/span>
\n3600<\/span>
\n55<\/span>
\n4622 of 2007
\n2<\/span>
\n293<\/span>
\n3600<\/span>
\n56<\/span>
\n4641 of 2007
\n3<\/span>
\n40<\/span>
\n1500<\/span>
\n57<\/span>
\n4642 of 2007
\n6<\/span>
\n102<\/span>
\n1350<\/span>
\n58<\/span>
\n4643 of 2007
\n2<\/span>
\n317<\/span>
\n10560
\n59<\/span>
\n4644 of 2007
\n21<\/span>
\n105<\/span>
\n6075<\/span>
\n60<\/span>
\n4645 of 2007
\n4<\/span>
\n96<\/span>
\n1350<\/span>
\n61<\/span>
\n4646 of 2007
\n2<\/span>
\n122<\/span>
\n1188<\/span>
\n62<\/span>
\n4647 of 2007
\n12<\/span>
\n105<\/span>
\n945<\/span>
\n63<\/span>
\n4648 of 2007
\n3<\/span>
\n135<\/span>
\n1188<\/span>
\n64<\/span>
\n4649 of 2007
\n2<\/span>
\n205<\/span>
\n2070<\/span>
\n65<\/span>
\n4779 of 2007
\n1<\/span>
\n127<\/span>
\n5400<\/span>
\n66<\/span>
\n4780 of 2007
\n25<\/span>
\n158<\/span>
\n8991<\/span>
\n67<\/span>
\n4781 of 2007
\n9<\/span>
\n56<\/span>
\n7200<\/span>
\n68<\/span>
\n4782 of 2007
\n28, 28 A
\n333<\/span>
\n18711
\n69<\/span>
\n4783 of 2007
\n15<\/span>
\n40<\/span>
\n1020<\/span><\/p>\n
\t6.The rationale behind such steep increase made all of a sudden without
\nany uniformity, is not clear. All that the Municipality says is that the
\nrevision was made by the Municipal Council based upon the market rate of rent
\nprevailing in the locality in respect of privately owned buildings.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.But such a fixation does not appear to be a scientific method of
\nfixation of fair rent for the shops in question. The term “Market Rate” is an
\nabstract entity  to which one can infuse life only if it is determined on the
\nbasis of several factors such as the value of land in the locality, cost of
\nconstruction, amenities provided in the building, the accessibility by Public
\nTransport Systems, etc. It appears that the Council fixed the fair rent in
\nrespect of the shops in question on the basis of oral enquires made in the
\nlocality, which in my considered view could never have formed the basis for
\nfixing the fair rent for the Municipal Shops.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Way back in the year 1970 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider
\nthe question relating to the method of assessment of annual value of lands and
\nbuildings, in  Guntur Municipal Council V. Guntur Town Rate Payers’ Association<\/a>
\n(AIR 1971 Supreme Court 353). Though the said case related to the method of
\nassessment of annual value of buildings for the purpose of determining the
\nproperty tax payable, the said decision gives a clue as to how the Municipality
\nis obliged to determine the fair rent for the buildings for the purpose of
\ndeciding the annual value of the buildings. The Supreme Court held in the said
\njudgment as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 82 (2) of the Act makes provision for the fixation of annual value of
\nlands and buildings. The test essentially is what rent the premises can lawfully
\nfetch if let out to hypothetical tenant. The municipality is thus not free to
\nassess any arbitrary annual value and has to look to and is bound by the fair or
\nstandard rent which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent
\nControl Act in force during the year of assessment.
\n\tThere is no distinction between buildings the fair rent of which has
\nactually been fixed by the Rent Controller and those in respect of which no such
\nrent has been fixed. When the controller has not fixed the fair rent, the
\nmunicipal authorities will have to arrive at their own figure of fair rent in
\naccordance with the principles laid down in the Rent Control Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The aforesaid decision in Guntur Municipal Council case was followed in
\nDewan Daulat Rai Kapoor V. New Delhi Municipal Committee<\/a> ((1980) 1 SCC 685) and
\nlater in Morvi Municipality V. State of Gujarat and others<\/a> ((1993) 2 SCC 520).
\nIn para 7 of the said decision the Supreme Court held as follows:
\n“7.It is not necessary for us to go a detailed discussion of the pros and cons
\nof the question since the question is no longer res integra. The decisions of
\nthis Court rendered in Corporation of Calcutta V. Smt Padma Debi<\/a>, Corporation of
\nCalcutta V. Life Insurance Corporation of India<\/a>, Guntur Municipal Council V.
\nGuntur Town Rate Payers’ Association<\/a> and Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor V. New Delhi
\nMunicipal Committee<\/a> have consistently held that it is not the value of
\noccupation of the property to the tenant, but the rental income from it to the
\nowner which is to be taken into consideration while estimating the reasonable
\nreturn that a landlord can expect from his property.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In East India Commercial Co-operative Private Limited V. Corporation of
\nCalcutta<\/a> ((1998 4 SCC 368), the Supreme Court held that when the Municipal Act
\nrequires the determination of the annual value, that Act has to be read along
\nwith the Rent Restriction Act which provides for the determination of fair rent
\nor standard rent. In para 17 of the said judgment it was held as follows:
\n“17.From the aforesaid decisions, the principle which is deducible is that when
\nthe Municipal Act requires the determination of the annual value, that Act has
\nto be read along with the Rent Restriction Act which provides for the
\ndetermination of fair rent or standard rent. Reading the two Acts together the
\nrateable value cannot be more than the fair or standard rent which can be fixed
\nunder the Rent Control Act. The exception to this rule is that whenever any
\nMunicipal Act itself provides the mode of determination of the annual letting
\nvalue like the Central Bank of India case relating to Ahmedabad or contains a
\nnon obstante clause as in Ratnaprabha case then the determination of the annual
\nletting value has to be according to the terms of the Municipal Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The aforesaid decisions were considered in Commissioner V. Griha
\nYajamanula Samkhya<\/a> ((2001) 5 SCC 651). Though in para 35 of the said decision,
\nthe Supreme Court held that the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is a
\ncomplete Code for assessment of property tax and that there is no provision in
\nthe statute that the fair rent determined under the Rent Control Act in respect
\nof a property is binding on the Commissioner, the Supreme Court nevertheless
\nheld in para 37 that “the intent and purpose of the exercise to determine the
\nannual rental value is to avoid arbitrariness in the process of assessment of
\nthe tax.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In India Automobiles (1960) Limited V. Calcutta Municipal Corporation<\/a>
\n((2002) 3 SCC 388), it was argued that conflicting views had emerged from the
\ncase in Corporation of Calcutta V. Padma Debi<\/a> (AIR 1962 SC 151) up to the case
\nin Commissioner V. Griha Yajamanula and others<\/a>. But the Supreme Court pointed
\nout that the law was settled on the point though distinction was made in some
\ncases with reference to the relevant Municipal law. In para 24 of its judgment
\nthe Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“24.We do not find any conflict in the judgments of this Court so far as the
\ndetermination of annual value of the property under the municipal law is
\nconcerned. Distinction, if any, is based upon the relevant provision of the
\nstatute of a State with which this Court was dealing, particularly with respect
\nto such statutes which contained a non obstante clause. We are of the view that
\nthe basis for determination of annual rent value has to be the standard rent
\nwhere the Rent Control Act is applicable and in all other cases reasonable
\ndetermination of such rent by the municipal authorities keeping in view various
\nfactors as indicated herein earlier, including the rent which the tenant is
\ngetting from his sub-tenant. In appropriate cases the owner of the property may
\nbe in a position to satisfy the authorities that the gross annual rent of the
\nbuilding of which the annual valuation was being determined cannot be more than
\nthe actual rent received by such owner from his tenant. The municipal
\nauthorities shall keep in mind the various pronouncements of this Court, the
\nstatutory provisions made in the specified Municipal Acts, keeping in mind the
\napplicability or non-applicability of the Rent Act<\/a> and the peculiar
\ncircumstances of each case, to find out the gross annual rent of the building
\nincluding service charges, if any, at which such land or building might, at the
\ntime of assessment, be reasonably expected to let from year to year in terms of
\nSection 174<\/a> of the 1980 Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Thus it is clear that if the provisions of a particular municipal law
\nare silent about the method of determination of annual rental value, the
\nmunicipalities are entitled to take recourse to the provisions of the relevant
\nrent control legislation for the purpose of determining the annual rental value.
\nTherefore, the same analogy has necessarily to be imported for the purpose of
\ndetermining the rent chargeable by municipalities for the buildings let out by
\nthem to third parties, especially in the absence of any provision for the method
\nof fixation of rent for the buildings owned by municipalities.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act by itself does not contain a
\nprovision either for letting out the buildings owned by municipalities or the
\nmethod of fixation of the rental value of such buildings. It is only by the
\nexecutive fiat that the Government had been directing the municipalities to
\nadopt some method of fixation of fair rent. Section 303<\/a> (1) of the Tamil Nadu
\nDistrict Municipalities Act, 1920 empowers the State Government to make rules to
\ncarry out the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 303<\/a> lists out the
\nmatters in relation to which such rules may be issued by the Government. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(d) under Sub-section (2) of Section 303<\/a> reads as follows:
\n“(2) in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
\npower they may make rules –\n<\/p>\n
(d) as to the conditions on which property may be acquired by the municipal
\ncouncil or on which property vested in or belonging to the municipal council may
\nbe transferred by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus it is left to the rule making power of the Government to provide for the
\nconditions on which the property belonging to the municipal council may be
\ntransferred.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In exercise of the power so conferred under Section 303<\/a> (1) of the
\nTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Government appears to have
\nissued statutory rules. These rules are called “The Conduct of Election of
\nMunicipal Councilors Rules, 1962”. Though the nomenclature given to the rules is
\nmisleading, the said rules cover various aspects. Chapter I of the said rules
\ndeals with “General Administration”; Chapter II deals with “Budget,
\nAdministration Report and Audit”; Chapter III deals with “Establishment”;
\nChapter IV deals with “Receipts and Expenditure”; Chapter V deals with
\n“Assessment and Collection of Taxes”; Chapter VI deals with “Collection of other
\nRevenues”; Chapter VII deals with “Education – Medical – Vaccination”; Chapter
\nVIII deals with “Public Works”; Chapter IX deals with “Debt Heads” and Chapter X
\ndeals with “Accounts, Registers and Returns”. These rules are available in
\nVolume I of “Municipal Manual”, the copies of which are now rare to find.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Interestingly each rule in the aforesaid rules is also termed as
\nParagraphs. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid rules deals with “Acquisition and
\nTransfer of Immovable Property by Municipal Councils.” Several conditions and
\nrestrictions are imposed under paragraphs 12-2 to 12-8 of the aforesaid rules,
\non the transfer of –\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) immovable properties vesting in but not belonging to a municipal
\ncouncil;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) immovable properties belonging to a municipal council; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) properties such as road-sides and street margins.
\nParagraph 12-4 deals with Transfer of immovable property belonging to a
\nMunicipal Council by way of lease and it reads as follows:
\n“12-4: Transfer by lease of immovable property belonging to a Municipal
\nCouncil.-\n<\/p>\n
(1) A Municipal Council may lease out any immovable property belonging to it:
\n\tProvided that no such lease shall be valid in case the period of the lease
\nexceeds three years or where the lessee is permitted to put up any building or
\nstructure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud or metal, unless the sanction of
\nthe Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards has been obtained therefor.
\n\t(2)The lease deed shall be in Form III (a) in Schedule III appended to
\nthese rules with such variations as circumstances may require.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The manner in which transfers and leases of immovable properties
\nbelonging to Municipalities could be granted, is detailed under paragraph 12-7
\nof the aforesaid rules, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“12-7: Publication of proposed transfers and leases.-
\n(1) In every case of transfer or lease falling under rule 12-3, 12-4, 12-5 or
\n12-6, the Municipal Council shall publish a notice of the proposed transfer or
\nlease, giving full particulars of the property to be transferred or leased, the
\nname of the proposed transferee or lessee and the consideration for the transfer
\nor the rent reserved under the lease-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)in the District Gazette, if the consideration for the transfer exceeds
\nRs.500 or if the rent reserved under the lease exceeds Rs.100 per annum and\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)by affixture in a conspicuous position-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i) at the offices of the Municipal Council, of the Collector of the
\ndistrict and of the Revenue Divisional Officer,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(ii) at the taluk office,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(iii) at the Village chavadi of the village in which the property is
\nsituated, and\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(iv) on the property to be transferred or leased.
\n\t(2)In every case where such transfer or lease is to be by public auction,
\na notice with full particulars of the property to be transferred or leased shall
\nbe published-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a)in the District Gazette and in one or two prominent Local
\nNewspapers circulated within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council if the
\nconsideration for the transfer exceeds Rs.500 or if the rent reserved under the
\nlease exceeds Rs.100 per annum,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b)in the manner specified ii clause (b) of sub-rule (1); and\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c) by tom-tom in suitable places.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)The Municipal Council may dispense with the publication in the District
\nGazette as required by sub-rules (1) and (2) in the cases of leases which are
\ngranted during the course of a financial year owing to the failure of the
\noriginal lessee to fulfil the terms of his lease.
\n\t(4)Publication of the notice in the District Gazette as required by sub-
\nrules (1) and (2) shall not be necessary during the continuance of the present
\nwar.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It appears from paragraph 12-8 that the leases of any immovable
\nproperty belonging to the Municipalities would be valid only if the lessee is
\nmade to pay such assessment, ground-rent or quit-rent as the Collector may
\ndetermine. It is perhaps in the light of the said paragraph that the Government
\nof Tamil Nadu issued  G.O.Ms.No.147 Municipal Administration and Water Supply
\nDepartment dated 30.12.2000, prescribing certain guidelines for the renewal of
\nleases and for fixation of rent. Paragraph 4(3) of the said Government Order
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“3.mt;thW. nkYk; K:d;whz;LfSf;F mspf;fg;gLk; Fj;jif. g[jpa Fj;jifahff;
\nfUjg;gl;L. g[[jpjhf Fj;jifj; bjhif eph;zapf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;\/ ,g;g[jpa Fj;jifj;
\nbjhif mg;gFjpapy; eilKiwapYs;s thlif kjpg;gpd; mog;gilapy; (Market rental value)
\neph;zapf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;\/ mt;thW eph;zak; bra;a. mg;gFjpapy; efuhl;rpahy; fle;j
\nXuhz;oy; Vyj;jpy; tplg;gl;l filfspd; thlifj; bjhif. jdpahh; filfspd; thlif mst[.
\nmuR my;yJ muR rhh;e;j epWtd’;fs; jdpahhpd; fl;olj;jpw;F mYtyf trjpf;nfh gpw
\n,dj;jpw;nfh. brYj;Jk; thlif mst[ nghd;wit mog;gilahff; bfhs;sg;gl ntz;Lk;\/
\n,Jnghd;W fzf;fplg;gl;l thlif kjpg;gpd; mog;gilapy; xU rJu mst[f;fhd thlif
\neph;zapf;fg;gl;L mjd; mog;gilapy; cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fspd; filf;fhd g[jpa Fj;jifj;
\nbjhif eph;azapf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;\/ vg;goapUg;gpDk; g[jpajhf eph;zapf;fg;gLk; thlifj;
\nbjhif brd;w Mz;L thlifiatpl Fiwe;jJ 15%  TLjyhf ,Uf;fntz;Lk;\/”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Curiously the aforesaid Government Order G.O.Ms.No.147, dated
\n30.12.2000 does not specify as to whether it was issued in exercise of any of
\nthe powers conferred under the aforesaid rules namely “The Conduct of Election
\nof Municipal Councilors Rules, 1962”. As stated earlier, the only rule which
\ndeals with the determination of assessment, ground-rent or quit-rent for the
\nproperties leased out by Municipalities, is in paragraph 12-8 of the aforesaid
\nrules. But the said paragraph 12-8 does not appear to delegate the power to fix
\nground-rent or quit-rent upon the Government. Therefore, the aforesaid
\nGovernment Order does not trace its existence to any delegation of powers either
\nunder the Statute or under the Rules. But nevertheless the aforesaid Government
\nOrder made two things clear namely –\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)that the Market rental value should be fixed on the basis of certain
\nparameters such as (i) the rent that the municipal shops fetched in an auction
\nconducted in the past one year, (ii) the rent fixed for private shops or for the
\nbuildings owned by the Government or Government owned institutions; and<\/p>\n
\t(b)that the enhancement of rent should be atleast by 15% of the existing
\nrent.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In modification of the aforesaid Government Order, the Government
\nissued another order in G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply
\nDepartment dated 03.07.2007. Under para 4(ii) of the said Government Order, the
\nGovernment directed that the municipal shops could be leased out for a period of
\n3 years at a time and that the lease could be renewed automatically on the
\nexpiry of 3 years. The renewals could continue for a total period of 9 years and
\nthe rent could be enhanced by 15% once in 3 years. Para 4(iii)   of the said
\nGovernment Order directed that the rent should be re-determined after 9 years
\nand that such               re-determination shall be on the basis of the market
\nrate of rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.But the said Government Order is also silent on the question as to how
\nthe market rate of rent is to be determined. Therefore, the method of
\ndetermination of rent as fixed under para 4(3) of the previous Government Order
\nG.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.12.2000 does not appear to have undergone any change,
\nunder the recent Government Order G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007. In any case
\nthe respondent is obliged to follow the recent order G.O.Ms.No.92, dated
\n03.07.200, only in respect of leases which are in force as on the date of issue
\nof the G.O. namely, 03.07.2007, by virtue of the direction issued in the last
\nline of para 4(ii).  In the present case, the Municipal Council of the
\nrespondent passed a resolution on 29.03.2007 fixing the rent payable for all the
\nshops, for the purpose of considering the question of renewal of the leases with
\neffect from 01.04.2007. Therefore, the order applicable to the case on hand is
\nonly G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.12.2000. But unfortunately both the Government
\nOrders do not prescribe a scientific method of fixation of fair rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Interestingly, the previous Government Order G.O.Ms.No.147, dated
\n30.12.2000 prescribed an enhancement of rent by a minimum of 15% over and above
\nthe existing rent. In other words, the Government Order gave a leverage to the
\nMunicipal Councils to fix a rent which is not less than 15% over and above the
\nexisting rent. But the present Government Order G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007
\nhas fixed 15% enhancement uniformly without any leverage for the Municipal
\nCouncil. It is not known as to how far the present Government Order would be
\nvalid, if tested on the touchstone of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act
\nand the rules issued thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.However, I am not for a moment, concerned with the question of validity
\nof G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007 in this case. The aforesaid Government Orders
\nwere referred to, just for the purpose of testing whether they throw any light
\nupon the method of fixation of rent. But they do not, except to some extent, in
\npara 4(3) of G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.12.2000. But the method of fixation of rent
\nprovided in para 4(3) of the said G.O. is also not scientific.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Therefore, one has to necessarily seek an extraneous aid for the
\npurpose of finding out as to how the rent for a building offered on lease by the
\nMunicipality is to be fixed. As seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in
\nGuntur Municipal Council case, the method of fixation of fair rent as prescribed
\nunder the Rent Control Act was imported into the District Municipalities Act for
\nthe purpose of enabling the Municipality to determine the annual value of the
\nbuildings. Therefore, by the same analogy, the fair rent for the buildings
\noffered on lease by Municipalities, has also to be determined on the same basis.
\nIn the absence of a specific provision in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities
\nAct, 1920 the recourse to the method of fixation of fair rent as provided under
\nthe Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alone, in my considered
\nview, could provide a scientific   and logical basis for the fixation of fair
\nrent.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Recourse to the provisions of the Rent Control Act for the purpose of
\ndetermining the fair rent that could be charged by municipalities for their
\nbuildings would not only avoid arbitrariness but also ensure uniformity in the
\nmatter of charging rent. The Tabular Form extracted in para 5 above shows that
\nin one case the enhancement of rent by the respondent is by 5 times (Serial
\nNo.36 Shop No.1). On the other extreme the enhancement in respect of Shop No.31
\n(Serial No.52) is by 177 times. Such enhancement, in individual cases may even
\nbe justified but such justification will go on record only if the method of
\nfixation is scientific and uniform.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned
\nnotices are set aside and the respondent Municipality is directed\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) To determine the fair rent for each of the shops taken on lease by the
\npetitioners, separately by adopting  the same principles as laid down under the
\nTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for fixation of fair rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) After determining the fair rent on a provisional basis, by adopting
\nthe above method, the respondent shall serve notices on the writ petitioners,
\nenclosing copies of the working sheets containing details of the calculations so
\nmade and call upon the lessees to furnish their objections in writing.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)After the lessees submit their objections, to the notices so issued by
\nthe respondent, the respondent shall pass final orders fixing the fair rent. It
\nis made clear that such fixation of fair rent, shall be with effect from
\n01.04.2007, since the exercise for enhancement of rent was undertaken by the
\nMunicipality with effect from 01.04.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)It is also made clear that the lessees should furnish whatever
\ndocuments they rely upon, for the purpose of arriving at the fair rent for the
\nbuilding, along with their objections, so that the exercise of determining the
\nfair rent can be completed by the Municipality at the earliest.
\nNo costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
sgl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Commissioner,
\nPudukkottai Municipality,
\nPudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
The Registry is directed to send
\na copy of the Judgment to<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  Municipal Administration and
\n  Water Supply Department,
\n  Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration,
\n  Chepauk, Chennai – 5.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20\/09\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.4420 of 2007, W.P.(MD)Nos.4421 to 4423 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1\/2007(All WPs) W.P.(MD)Nos.4470 to 4482\/2007 & M.P.Nos.1\/2007 (All WPs) and M.P.Nos.3\/2007 in W.P.4478 & 4479\/2007 W.P.(MD)Nos.4572 to 4577\/2007 & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3736,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\",\"name\":\"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007"},"wordCount":3736,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007","name":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-15T09:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-m-geeyavudeen-vs-the-commissioner-on-20-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K.M.Geeyavudeen vs The Commissioner on 20 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}