Disposed

Mr.v.Jeyaraman, v. the Madurai Corporation

Madras HC23 Jan 2024WP(MD)/6472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These common writ petitions challenged demand notices revising monthly shop rents retrospectively. The petitioners agreed to pay revised rent via a proposal, which the Corporation agreed to consider in the next council meeting. The Court disposed of the petitions, directing the Corporation to decide on the proposal in the next meeting, forbear coercive action, and stipulating payment of admitted r

What did the court decide?

Direction to Corporation to decide on the petitioners' rent revision proposal in the next council meeting; no coercive action till then; payment of admitted rent.

Mr.v.Jeyaraman, Vs the Madurai Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6292 to 6305 of 2018

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.6472 of 2018

V.Jeyaraman

... Petitioner

versus

The Madurai Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, O/o.Madurai Corporation Buildings, Madurai – 625 002, Madurai District.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice dated 15.09.2017 on the file of the respondent pertaining to the petitioner's shop namely Shop No.19 in Tax Assessment No.6130019, Mattuthavani Viragu Commission, K.K.Nagar, Madurai District and quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction, forbearing 1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶16

the respondent from levying monthly rent over and above the permissible rent for the petitioner shops within the time period stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶18

For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Vinayak

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned demand notices issued by the respondent, revising the monthly rent for the shops of the petitioners.

¶21

It is submitted that similar writ petitions have been filed by

¶22

other licensees in W.P.(MD)Nos.18886 of 2019, etc. (batch) before this Court and this Court, by a common order dated 05.12.2023, has passed the following orders:

¶23

“These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned demand notices issued by the respondent, revising the monthly rent for the shops of the petitioners.

¶24

The petitioners are fire wood merchants, who have

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶28

been provided shops near Mattuthavani market. The petitioners are in possession of the subject property for more than two decades. In the year 2018, the respondent Corporation vide impugned demand notices has revised the rent for the shops with effect from 2016 retrospectively. Aggrieved over the same, these Writ Petitions have been filed.

¶29

On previous occasion (i.e.,) 20.11.2023, when the matters came up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a main plea that the respondent Corporation is not justified in revising the rent retrospectively. This Court accepted the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and suggested the petitioners to give a proposal for revision of the rent.

¶30

Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have agreed to pay the revised rent and submitted a proposal on 30.11.2023 and the same has to be considered by the respondent Corporation.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the Council meeting will be held once in a month and it is likely to be convened at the end of December 2023 and the proposal submitted by the petitioners will be considered in the council meeting.

¶32

3/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶35

Considering the facts of the case and the subsequent developments, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the respondent Corporation to take a decision on the proposal submitted by the petitioners in the next Council meeting. Till such time, the respondent Corporation shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to pay the admitted rent till a decision is taken. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶36

In view of the above, these writ petitions are also disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

23.01.2024

¶38

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, O/o.Madurai Corporation Buildings, Madurai – 625 002.

¶39

4/5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶43

ogy

¶44

W.P.(MD)Nos.6472 to 6480 of 2018

¶45

23.01.2024

¶46

5/5

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.v.Jeyaraman, v. the Madurai Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.v.Jeyaraman, v. the Madurai Corporation

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

Kamaraj Packianath Vs The Regional Manager

M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Transport Vs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

P.Ramuthai, Vs the District Collector

J.Jesurajan, Vs the Regional Director

Krishnaveni Vs the District Collector

Sethurajan Padma Matriculation Vs the Madurai Corporation