Allowed

Shaik Haja v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2021WA/974/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench appealed against an earlier order directing appellants to accept enhanced rent for shop leases. The Court directed appellants to approach the municipality within four weeks to clear arrears of the enhanced rate. The appeal was disposed of on this line.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks' time granted to appellants to approach the fifth respondent with arrears of enhanced rent.

Shaik Haja Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

W.A.No.974 of 2018 and C.M.P. Nos.8230 & 8231 of 2018

¶7

1.Shaik Haja

¶8

2.Santha 3.Mohanarangan 4.Md.Kassim 5.Md.Ali 6.A.Shahjahan 7.G.Sivanadams (deceased)

8.I.Shabir

9.Md.Dhatha

10.Thavamani

11.K.S.Askar Ali (deceased) rep. by his son M.Wahab 12.Adam 13.K.P.M.Md.Basha (deceased) rep. by his son Liyiakath Ali 14.A.Adam

¶13

15.Srinivasan

¶14

16.D.Shaik Hussain

¶15

17.V.A.Musatafa Kamal ...Appellants/Petitioners

¶16

versus

¶17

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

¶18

State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶19

The Director of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶20

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Sarathi Nagar, Kakithaipattarai, Vellore-12.

¶21

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶22

The Commissioner, Vandavasi Municipality, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents/Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.11.2017 made in W.P. No.19896 of 2017.

¶24

Prayer in W.P. No.19896 of 2017: Writ of certiorified mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 15.03.2017 in Na.Ka.No.2360/2016/A1 issued to all the petitioners and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, directly the 5th respondent to re-fix the rent/lease amount for the various shops, keeping in view the guidelines and circulars and other relevant factors into account.

¶25

For Appellants : Ms.D.Kamachi For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶26

Mr.O.Selvam for R5

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in the light of the judgment passed in W.A. No.1013 of 2018 granting time for the appellants to approach the fifth respondent for retention and continuance of shops in question as per G.O. Ms. No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 03.07.2007, this present appeal may be disposed of granting four weeks' time to the appellants to approach the fifth respondent and affording them an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶31

2.Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.O.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, seriously objecting for the grant of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants, submitted that this Court, while considering the similar and identical issue as that of the present writ appeal, viz. in the above W.A. No.1013 of 2018, taking note of the fact that some of the licencees have been continuing their business by sub letting the shops to other third parties without the approval of the fifth respondent, directed the appellants to accept the enhanced rate fixed by the fifth respondent on clearing the entire arrears, for which four weeks' time was given. Therefore, the same direction may be given to the appellants.

¶32

3.Since the Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us was a party (TRJ), while disposing of the similar and identical issue as that of the present appeal, viz. in W.A. No.1013 of 2018 by order dated 16.08.2021, has observed that if the appellants are prepared to accept the enhanced rate fixed by the fifth respondent on clearing the entire arrears, dealing with the above G.O. Ms. No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 03.07.2007, their request would be considered and this present appeal is also to be disposed of in the same line. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion as under:

¶33

'8.Though we find merits on the submission made by Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4, considering the present pandemic situation, we are inclined to accept the plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Therefore, if the appellants are prepared to accept the enhanced rate fixed by the fifth

¶34

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

¶35

respondent on clearing the entire arrears, their request would be considered. Four weeks' time is granted to the appellants to approach the fifth respondent with the arrears of enhanced rent as on date.'

¶36

4.Therefore, if the appellants are prepared to accept the enhanced rate fixed by the fifth respondent on clearing the entire arrears, their request would be considered. Four weeks' time is granted to the appellants to approach the fifth respondent with the arrears of enhanced rent as on date. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

vga

¶42

¶43

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶44

Municipal Administration and

¶45

Water Supply Department,

¶46

Fort St. George,

¶47

Chennai – 600 009.

¶48

The Director of Municipal Administration,

¶49

Municipal Administration Department,

¶50

Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶51

Chennai – 600 005.

¶52

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Sarathi Nagar, Kakithaipattarai, Vellore-12.

¶53

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶54

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

¶55

The Commissioner, Vandavasi Municipality, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai.

¶56

+1 CC to Mrs.D.Kamachi, Advocate, Sr.No. 46599. +1 CC to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 46496.

¶57

W.A.No.974 of 2018 and C.M.P. Nos.8230 & 8231 of 2018

¶58

SJ(CO) LS(27/09/2021)

¶59

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

Shaik Haja v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Haja v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Thangavel Nadar Vs a/M.Thiruvatteswarar

The Recovery Officer, Vs the Official Liquidator

Dr.a.Chandran Vs Chief Educational Officer

V.Padmini Vs K.Sekar M.Sc. Med.

S.Ramakrishnan Vs Kannegi Packianathan I.A.S

P.Veldurai Ex.M.L.a Vs the Tn Legislative Assembly Secretariat