Partly allowed

M.Muthu v. The Commissioner

Madras HC17 Feb 2016WP/31712/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged proceedings claiming market rent for alleged encroachment of 1471 sq. ft. The court accepted that a covered passage and toilets measured 309.77 sq. ft. are not encroachments. However, the petitioner must pay rent for this specific extent at rates applicable to the leasehold area.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order for 1471 sq. ft. extent set aside; petitioner directed to pay rent for 309.77 sq. ft. (passage and toilets) at rates applicable to 2777 sq. ft. leasehold area.

M.Muthu Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17-02-2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.31712 of 2015

M. Muthu

.. Petitioner

Vs
1. The Commissioner
Salem Corporation
Salem
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Suramangalam Ward Officer
Salem Corporation
Salem .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in K1/34694/1993 dated 23-07-2015 and to quash the same and to pass orders.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr. R.N. Amarnath
For respondents : Mr. S. Diwakar, AGP
Mr. K. Krishnamurthy,
Advocate Commissioner
ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the respondent-Corporation, dated 23-07-2015 wherein the respondent-Corporation has claimed market rent in respect of an extent of 1471 sq. ft which according to the respondent is in excess of the lease-hold area.

¶12

The petitioner is running a Hotel in the bus-stand complex owned by the respondent-Corporation and the area granted to the petitioner, on lease is 2777 Sq.ft. The petitioner has challenged the said impugned proceedings as being arbitrary and unreasonable, contending that there is no encroachment or additional extent occupied by the petitioner than the leasehold area and the respondent-Corporation have erroneously taken into

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

consideration a open corridor and toilets as area in occupation, over and above the leasehold area.

¶15

Earlier an order was passed in this writ petition appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted a report from which it is seen that there is a passage with sunlit ventilation covered with A/C sheet roof with drainage of 277.91 sq.ft., and two toilets totally measuring 31.8 sq.ft. Thus, the report clearly shows that there is no encroachment of municipal land nor it has been put to use as a hotel. It appears to be used only as a passage and it is not a closed area. Further, the toilet amenities has to be provided to the customers, who visit the Hotel, especially when the Hotel is situated in busstand complex. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accede the technicality that the area measuring passage of 277.91 sq.ft. and toilets measuring 31.86sq.ft is not an encroachment. But, however, since the petitioner is utilising the same and he being a commercial establishment, has to pay a reasonable rent for the said extent to the Corporation.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order insofar as the extent mentioned as 1471 sq.ft., is set aside and the extent of the land is fixed as 309.77sq.ft(277.91+31.86) for which the petitioner shall pay rent to the respondent-Municipality at the same rates which the petitioner had been paying for the leasehold area of 2777sq.ft. with periodical increases from 1994 onwards till date. The respondent/Corporation is directed to issue a revised demand in this regard which shall be paid by the petitioner.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remuneration has been fully paid to the learned Advocate Commissioner, as fixed by this Court and there was no request for additional remuneration.

¶18

However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

The Commissioner, Salem Corporation, Salem.

¶25

The Assistant Commissioner, Suramangalam Ward Officer, Salem Corporation, Salem.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate, S.R.No.10033 +1cc to Mr.S.Diwakar, Advocate, S.R.No.10681

¶27

W.P.No.31712 of 2015
ev(CO)
srg(25/02/2016)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Muthu v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Muthu v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Kannan Vs The District Collector

K.Mathaiyan @ Nehru Vs the Registrar

R.Sridharan Vs Jayakumar

R. Govindan Vs v.Nataraja Reddiar (Died)

Mrs.Radhika Kannan, Vs The Secretary to Government

Raja Kulasekaran, Vs Corporation of Chennai