Dismissed

C.Mary Bensi v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Oct 2019WP/17208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner, holding a lease since 1971, failed to pay the lease rent as revised under G.O. Ms. No.460 dated 10.03.2005. It dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the demand notice for accruing arrears because the petitioner had not even paid the original demand while in possession. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition M.P. 1 of 2008 is closed.

C.Mary Bensi Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 17208 of 2008

¶6

and M.P. 1 of 2008

¶7

C.Mary Bensi ... Petitioner Versus 1. The District Collector, Ooty, The Nilgiris. 2. The Tahsildar, Coonoor, The Nilgiris. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent herein dated 04.07.2008 in Proceedings Na.Ka.A2 19593/2004 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2 O R D E R

¶8

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the demand notice issued by the 2^nd respondent to pay the arrears of lease amount.

¶9

According to the petitioner, in the year 1971, an extent of 688 sq.ft. of land in Old Survey No.1916/1 and R.S.No.NP/22/11 situated at No.51/20, T.T.K. Pillai Road, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District was leased out to the petitioner's father-in-law one R.Thomas. After the death of original lessee, the petitioner's husband late T.Christopher has became a lessee, and after his death, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since there was an arrears of lease amount to an extent of Rs.81,043/-, the impugned notice has been issued by the 2^nd respondent directing

¶10

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

¶11

the petitioner to pay the arrears, failing which, appropriate proceedings will be initiated in accordance with law. Challenging the above notice, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶12

Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, originally, the lease amount was fixed at Rs.350/- per annum, and the 2^nd respondent has revised the lease amount exorbitantly without issuing any notice whatsoever.

¶13

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that originally, the lease was granted to one Mr.R.Thomas, petitioner's father-in-law, fixing the rent of Rs.350/- per annum in the year 1971. Thereafter, as per G.O.Ms. No.460, Revenue Department, dated 10.03.2005 and Government letter No.155, Revenue Department, dated 10.03.2005, the lease rent has been increased every three years on 14% of the land value from the year 2008 and hence, there is a arrears of Rs.89,043/- to be paid by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, without paying the lease amount, challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel has also filed a detailed calculation memo regarding the revision made every three years.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.

¶15

On perusal of materials available on record, it could be seen that the lease has been granted in the year 1971. Thereafter, as per the G.O. Ms. No.460, dated 10.03.2005, the rent has been increased every three years. The calculation memo filed by the respondent would clearly shows that there is a rent arrears of Rs.81,043/-. But, without paying the arrears, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition. It is now submitted that even after filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has not paid the lease amount, and as on 2012, there is an arrears of Rs.6,85,613/-. In the above circumstances, without paying the lease amount, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition and the same is only liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition in M.P. 1 of 2008 is closed.

¶16

s/d-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶18

True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

rpp

¶22

¶23

The District Collector, Ooty, The Nilgiris.

¶24

The Tahsildar,

¶25

Coonoor, The Nilgiris.

¶26

+1 CC to Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate sr 87419 +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 88245.

¶27

W.P. 17208 of 2008
and
M.P. 1 of 2008
AD(CO)
SP(26/11/2019)

¶28

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

C.Mary Bensi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Mary Bensi v. the District Collector

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

K.Kothandaram and Vs the Secretary, Govt of

S. Narayanasamy Vs Union of India Rep. by the

J. Umamaheswari Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep by

Jagadeesh Cotton Company Vs State of Taminadu

V.Rethinabai Vs Dinesh Ponraj Oliver IAS

K.Veeraraghavan Vs N.Varadarajan Avl