In Writ Appeal No. 686 of 2015, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a shop leaseholder challenging the Single Judge's order. The court upheld the Single Judge's direction for the Town Panchayat to communicate the proposed market rent and grant a lease if the appellant accepted the offer, dismissing the claim for automatic renewal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 22.07.2015
DATE OF DECISION: 24 .07.2015 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.A. No.686 of 2015
and
M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
T.M. Duraisamy ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Works Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Ezhilagam
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
3. The Assistant Director
Chennimalai Town Panchayat
Chennimalai, Erode
4. The Executive Officer
Chennimalai Town Panchayat
Chennimalai, Erode ... Respondents
Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 passed in W.P. No.7416 of 2013.
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to renew the lease of the site in the South Eastern
corner in the Tyagi Kumaran Chennimalai Bus Stand in Chennimalai,
Erode District in which the petitioner has set up the “Murugan Chappal Shop” for a period of 3 years from 01.04.2013 till 30.03.2016 and thereafter in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Finance 4) Department dated 03.07.2007 and consequently forbear the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the said site as long as he pays the rent in terms of the said G.O.
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr. N. Ponraj
JUDGMENT
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2015 passed in W.P. No.7416 of 2013, the writ petitioner therein has preferred the instant intraCourt appeal.
Administration and Water Supply (Finance 4) Department dated 03.07.2007. The said writ petition was disposed of, along with two other writ petitions, by a common order dated 20.02.2015 in the following terms:
“Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Town Panchayat to indicate the petitioners the lease rent which the Town Panchayat proposes to fix for the shops in question presently occupied by the petitioners and if the petitioners are willing to accept the offer, then, the respondent Town Panchayat shall consider the same and grant lease to the petitioners and if the petitioners are not willing, it is open to the respondent Town Panchayat to issue fresh tender cum public auction notification and proceed in accordance with law.”
appellant is entitled to extension for a further period of three years on enhancement of 15% rental.
“5. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Town Panchayat to indicate the petitioner the lease rent which the Town Panchayat proposes to fix for the shop in question presently occupied by the petitioner and if the petitioner is willing to accept the offer, then, the respondent Town Panchayat shall consider the same and grant lease to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not willing, it is open to the respondent Town Panchayat to issue fresh tender cum public auction notification and proceed in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
“21. x x x x x x x 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 lecensee 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.”
1 (2014) 5 MLJ 129
dated 12.11.2014, held as under:
“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 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.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
cad Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Works Department
State of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Ezhilagam
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
3. The Assistant Director
Chennimalai Town Panchayat
Chennimalai, Erode
4. The Executive Officer
Chennimalai Town Panchayat
Chennimalai, Erode
+2cc's to Mr.S.Ravee Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.33558 & 38624
+1cc to Mr.N.Ponraj, Advocate, S.R.No.38221
W.A. No.686 of 2015
GGK(CO)
CA(06/08/2015)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the leaseholder has a right to renew the lease for a shop at the bus stand as a matter of right.
Whether the order passed by the Single Judge directing the Town Panchayat to intimate the proposed lease rent and grant lease if accepted is reasonable.
Whether the exercise of discretion by the Municipality to not renew the lease on nominal rent violates the leaseholder's rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶28
P.Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu
C. Vinoba and 34 Others vs. Commissioner of Palladam MunicipalityReferred¶33
C. Vinoba and 34 Others vs. Commissioner of Palladam Municipality
T.M. Duraisamy
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
The Assistant Director Chennimalai Town Panchayat
The Executive Officer Chennimalai Town Panchayat
Satish K. Agnihotri
M. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
