The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the enhancement of monthly license fees for municipal shops. Relying on prior precedents, the Court held that municipal licensees have no right to contest rent fixation and must accept the offer or face public auction of the tenement.
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.
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.3893, 3898, 3900, 3906, 3913 & 3916 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos. 4624, 4630, 4631, 4641, 4643 & 4648 of 2020
W.P.No.3893 of 2020:- J.Maheswari
...Petitioner
-Vs-
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the demand notice dated 18.11.2019 issued by the second respondent enhancing the monthly rent from 794/- to Rs.4071/from the month of July, 2017 to the month of October, 2019 and quash the same and subsequently direct the second respondent to pass final order after due consideration of the objections submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.07.2007, issued by the first respondent.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
In all W.Ps. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondents For R1 : Mr.V.Manoharan, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.M.Kirubaharan
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the demand
notice issued by the second respondent thereby demanded arrears of rent due by the petitioners.
second respondent Municipality. The grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent has enhanced the monthly rent from Rs.794/- to Rs.4071/- from the month of July, 2017 to the month of October, 2019 without any basis and also without providing them an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
W.P.Nos.1037 to 1042 of 2018 etc ., by an order dated 18.01.2018 , held
as follows:-
“4. The licensees of shops in Rajapalayam Municipality filed a batch of writ petitions before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in W.P.(MD)Nos.9333 of 2017, etc., expressing the same grievance. The Writ Court, following the decisions of Single Judges and Division Bench of this Court A.Sathar Vs. the District Collector, Coimbatore and Another [AIR 1998 MAD 217], WA (MD) No.546 of 2010, dated 19.08.2010, P.N.Chinnasamy and 13 another vs. the Assistant Director of Town Panchyat, Coimbatore District [2010 1 CTC 584], P.Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 5 MLJ 129], C.Vinoba vs. the Commissioner, Palladam Municipality [2015 3 CTC 170] and P.P.M.S.C.L.W.Association vs. Commissioner [2016 3 MLJ 698] dismissed the writ petitions holding the licensees by relying on the G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 have no right in seeking extension of lease in perpetuation and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and and Rent Control) Act as amended, have no application in fixation of lincence fee.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
5. The judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)Nos.1058 to 1086 of 2017 by observing that licensees have no say in the fixation of rent and the rent fixed by the fee fixation committee forms part of an offer and it is for the licensees to accept or leave it.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment referred supra would squarely apply to the case on hand. It is up to the petitioners to accept the offer given by the respondent, within a period of one month and shall pay arrears, if any, within a period of two months. In case the petitioners do not give consent for the payment of the enhanced amount within one month, the respondents are directed to take action for public auction forthwith. This Court holds that once the auction notification is published, the petitioners are deemed to have vacated the tenement and the respondents can enter the place with the help of police force, if required.”
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the licensees have no say in the fixation of rent and it is for the licensees to accept or leave it.
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
12.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rts
To
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
Vellore – 632 402.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.3893 of 2020 etc.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
W.P.Nos.3893, 3898, 3900, 3906, 3913 & 3916 of 2020
12.08.2024
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the municipal respondent can enhance license fees without providing an opportunity of hearing?
Whether the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applies to the fixation of license fees for municipal shops?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to quash the demand notice for enhanced rent?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.Nos.1037 to 1042 of 2018 etcFollowed¶28
W.P.(MD)Nos.9333 of 2017Referred¶30
A.Sathar Vs. the District Collector, CoimbatoreReferred¶30
A.Sathar Vs. the District Collector, Coimbatore and Another [AIR 1998 MAD 217] · Who else cites this
WA (MD) No.546 of 2010Referred¶30
P.N.Chinnasamy and 13 another vs. the Assistant Director of Town PanchyatReferred¶30
P.N.Chinnasamy and 13 another vs. the Assistant Director of Town Panchyat, Coimbatore District [2010 1 CTC 584]
P.Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶30
P.Muthusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 5 MLJ 129]
C.Vinoba vs. the Commissioner, Palladam MunicipalityReferred¶30
C.Vinoba vs. the Commissioner, Palladam Municipality [2015 3 CTC 170]
P.P.M.S.C.L.W.Association vs. CommissionerReferred¶30
P.P.M.S.C.L.W.Association vs. Commissioner [2016 3 MLJ 698]
W.A.(MD)Nos.1058 to 1086 of 2017Referred¶34
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Maheswari
The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply
The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
