Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Satish K. Agnihotri and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
P. Muthusamy
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai and Another
W.P. Nos. 7080 to 7084, 7595 to 7602, 8594 to 8597, 12535 to 12539, 14372, 14373, 14491 to 14494, 31177, 35194, 35198, 35285, 35356, 35360 to 35369, 35371, 35372 of 2013 & W.P. No. 120 of 2014
Decided On : 30 April 2014
Public Interest Litigation - Municipality Shops - G.O.Ms. No. 147 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Finance IV) Department, dated 30.12.2000, G.O.Ms. No. 92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Finance IV) Department, dated 03.07.3007 - The court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the auction, rent fixation, and cancellation of leases of shops belonging to the Municipality. The court held that the petitioners, as licensees, did not have a legal or vested right to continue in occupation indefinitely and could not claim the right of a statutory tenant. The court emphasized that the purpose of auction followed by lease/licence was to collect more revenue for the Municipality for welfare measures, and the rent was fixed based on prevailing market value. The court also highlighted the Government Orders directing the Municipality to conduct public auctions and lease renewal conditions, and concluded that the impugned actions were in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the auction, rent fixation, and cancellation of leases of shops belonging to the Municipality. The petitioners, as licensees, had been in possession of the shops for decades and sought a direction for fresh auction. The Municipality had extended the lease period and revised the rent based on prevailing market value. The petitioners challenged the rent fixation, and the Municipality subsequently canceled the lease extensions and issued auction notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as licensees, did not have a legal or vested right to continue in occupation indefinitely and could not claim the right of a statutory tenant. The court emphasized that the purpose of auction followed by lease/licence was to collect more revenue for the Municipality for welfare measures, and the rent was fixed based on prevailing market value. The court also highlighted the Government Orders directing the Municipality to conduct public auctions and lease renewal conditions, and concluded that the impugned actions were in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the auction, rent fixation, and cancellation of leases of shops belonging to the Municipality, and the rights of the petitioners as licensees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, as licensees, did not have a legal or vested right to continue in occupation indefinitely and could not claim the right of a statutory tenant. The court emphasized that the purpose of auction followed by lease/licence was to collect more revenue for the Municipality for welfare measures, and the rent was fixed based on prevailing market value. The court also highlighted the Government Orders directing the Municipality to conduct public auctions and lease renewal conditions, and concluded that the impugned actions were in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the auction, rent fixation, and cancellation of leases of shops belonging to the Municipality. The court allowed one writ petition seeking a direction for fresh auction. There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. W.P. No. 31177 of 2013 has been filed by way of public interest litigation seeking a direction to the respondents to bring the shops belonging to the third respondent-Municipality for fresh auction by taking into consideration of the representation made by the petitioner on 24.10.2013.
2. W.P. Nos. 14372, 14373 and 14491 to 14494 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioners, who were the lessees of the shops belonging to the Municipality challenging the impugned resolution passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Municipality and the consequential auction notice issued by the Commissioner.
3. W.P. Nos. 7080 to 7084, 7595 to 7602 and 12535 to 12539 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the rent fixed by the third respondent-Municipality.
4. W.P. Nos. 8594 to 8597 of 2013 have been filed to forbear the respondent-Municipality from evicting/cancelling the lease based on retrospective increase of rent.
5. W.P. Nos. 35194 and 35198 of 2013 have been filed to quash the tender notice dated 20.12.2013 issued by the respondent Municipality and published on 21.12.2013.
6. W.P. Nos. 35285, 35356, 35360 to 35369, 35371 and 35372 of 2013 and 120 of 2014 have been filed to quash the resolution dated 20.12.2013 issued by the Chairman of the respondent-Municipality and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.12.2013 and published on 21.12.2013.
7. As all the writ petitions are interconnected and seeking relief against the very same respondent, they are dealt with by way of a common order.
8. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for C. Uma, Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Raveekumar, Mr. N. Ponraj, Mr. C. Prabakaran and Mr. S. Raveekumar, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.H. Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.S. Shivashanmughasundaram, Special Government Pleader, and Mr. M.S. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the documents and counter affidavits filed by the respondents.
Brief Facts:
9. The petitioners in all the Writ Petitions have been given licence to occupy the shops by the respondent-Municipality for a fixed period and almost, all the writ petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective shops allotted to them for few decades starting from the year 1986 onwards. The petitioners in W.P. No. 31177 of 2013 are seeking a direction to the respondent - Municipality for fresh auction. The particulars of lease/licence in respect of the writ petitioners are hereunder:
SlNo. Name of the Lease Writ Petition No. Shop No Year in this Lease Rent in 1986 Present Rent
1 P. Muthusamy WP.14372/2013 & M.P. No. 2/2013 Alangiam Salai shop No. 5 1986 555 2131
2 K.K. Velusamy WP.14373/2013 & M.P. No. 2/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 28 1986 111 1085
3 N. Velusamy WP.14491/2013 & M.P. No. 2/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 8 1986 81 1938
4 P. Rajkumar WP.14492/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 5 1986 105 1098
5 N. Murugesan WP.14493/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 23 1986 105 1072
6 R. Jeyaseelan WP.14494/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 9 1986 104 1098
7 S. Shanmugasundram WP.35194/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 40 1986 2169
8 P. Muthusamy WP.35285/2013 Alangiam Salai shop No. 5 1986 555 2131
9 V. Sankarasubramaniam WP.35356/2013 Alangiam Salai shop No. 2 1986 479 1825
10 R. Sridhar WP.35360/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 6 1986 173 3498
11 A. Duraisamy WP.35361/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 14 1986 105 1071
12 Shek Abdul Kadar (A) S.A. Shet WP.35362/2013 Bus Stand shop 1986
13 K. Thangamuthu WP.35363/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 50 1986 2123
14 M.P. Jafar WP.35364/2013 Daily Market Shop No. 7 1986 1217
15 S. Devarajan WP.35365/2013 Bus Stand South Side Shop No. 19 1986 110 1111
16 B. Govindaraj WP.35366/2013 Bus Stand North Side Shop No. 44 1986 401 1754
17 P.V. Selvaraj WP.35367/2013 Bus Stand South Side Shop No. 5 1986 1601
V. Kamalakannan Alangia
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
