Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1257
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Cosmopolitan Club, Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Mambalam - Guindy Taluk, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.P. No. 5231 of 2004 & W.P.M.P. No. 6067 of 2004
Decided On : 09-03-2015
For the Petitioner:V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for V.P. Sengottuvel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M.S. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader.
The Government has the authority to revise lease rent for every five years as per the G.O. Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966, and the Accountant General is the competent authority for recommending the collection of enhanced rent arrears.
Headnote:
GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT - LEASE - RENEWAL - ENHANCEMENT OF LEASE RENT - ARREARS OF LEASE RENT - REVISION OF LEASE RENT - JURISDICTION OF TAHSILDAR - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VALIDITY OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S REPORT - MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY - PURPOSE OF OCCUPATION - FAIR RENT - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - COMPREHENSIVE ENQUIRY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Cosmopolitan Club, filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar demanding arrears of enhanced lease rent for the period from 01.07.1971 to 30.06.1996. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction. The respondent, Tahsildar, contended that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the Government Order (G.O.) Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966, which provided for the revision of lease rent for every five years. The respondent also relied on the Accountant General's report, which determined the market value of the property and recommended the collection of enhanced rent arrears.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the G.O. Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966, which provided for the revision of lease rent for every five years. The Court also held that the Accountant General's report was valid and that the Accountant General was the competent authority for recommending the collection of enhanced rent arrears. The Court further held that the impugned order was passed on the basis of documentary proof and other mandatory facts and that it did not violate the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the petitioner was liable to pay the enhanced lease rent and that the impugned order was sustainable under law and suitable for execution.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar/respondent in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the impugned order had been passed pursuant to the G.O.M.S.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966 for the revision of lease rent for every five years ? 3. Whether the Accountant General's report is valid as per the G.O.Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department dated 09.11.1966 and also is he the competent authority for recommending the collection of enhanced rent arrears to compensate the Revenue loss to the State; 4. Whether the impugned order had been passed on the basis of documentary proof and other mandatory facts?.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the G.O. Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1966, which provided for the revision of lease rent for every five years. 2. The Accountant General's report was valid and the Accountant General was the competent authority for recommending the collection of enhanced rent arrears. 3. The impugned order was passed on the basis of documentary proof and other mandatory facts and did not violate the principles of natural justice. 4. The petitioner was liable to pay the enhanced lease rent and the impugned order was sustainable under law and suitable for execution.
Final Decision: The Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25 Crores, without prejudice, on or before 30th May 2015. Thereafter, the respondent was at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct a comprehensive enquiry, and decide the actual arrears of rent for the relevant period. The Court also held that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the findings of the Court, they were at liberty to file an appeal after complying with the Court's order.
1. The petitioner is the Joint Secretary of the Petitioner's Club and he has been authorized to file the above writ petition on behalf of the petitioner's club namely Cosmopolitan Club. The petitioner submits that it is an ancient club having completed more than 125 years of its existence. The club is a Company Registered under the Indian Companies Act. The eminent personalities and several Hon'ble Judges have been Presidents of the club and the club has acquired a distinct status. As on date the club has more than 4000 members on its rolls. During 1930 when Golf was not a very popular sport, the Englishmen who were members of the petitioner's club planned to have a Golf Club in the city of Madras which was first of its kind. The Government by G.O.Ms.No.1494, Revenue Department, dated 27.07.1937, allotted an extent of 0.33 acres of Government Farm Land and subsequently an extent of 77.37 acres of farm land was allotted by G.O.Ms.No.4696, Revenue Department dated 27.12.1956, for the purpose of a Golf Course. The land was barren and the petitioner's club took extensive steps to develop the same into a Golf course by incurring expenditure running to several lakhs of rupees. The Government by G.O.Ms.No.3189, Revenue Department dated 09.11.1966 granted a renewal for a further period of 30 years till 30.06.1996.
2. The petitioner submitted that the Government while renewing the Lease vide G.O.Ms.No.3189, dated 09.11.1996 fixed the lease rent at Rs.5,800/- per annum for the entire extent. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture the lease which was granted under the Government Grants Act and a deed in the statutory format had been executed and under the grant the Government reserved to themselves the right to enhance the rent during the period of lease. The petitioner has paid the lease rent as fixed in the Government Order upto 30.06.1996 and as such there is no default.
3. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner on 19.01.1996, applied to the Government for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years. While the application for renewal was pending, the Government by letter dated 03.04.1997, granted renewal and stated that a governing council will be appointed, which will comprise of members of the Petitioner Club, nominees of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Gulf Federation. The Petitioner challenged the said order dated 03.04.1997 before this Court in W.P.No.9043 of 1997. This Court by judgment dated 07.12.1998 held that the Government letter dated 03.04.1997 is one without jurisdiction and suffers from non-application of mind and quashed the condition imposed in the said letter dated 03.04.1997, appointing nominees. This Court made certain observations regarding the renewal of lease, which were favourable to the Petitioner.
4. The petitioner submitted that the Government ignoring the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.9043 of 1997, passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.278, Revenue Department dated 04.06.1999, rejecting the renewal of lease. The petitioner once again challenged the said order before this Court by filing in W.P.No.9636 of 1999. This Court by order dated 13.10.1999 dismissed the writ petition and observed that the Government could take appropriate further decision with due and proper care to protect the interest of the Golfers. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.2101 of 1999 and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to protect the possession of the Petitioner Club, giving liberty to the Government to proceed further in the matter. Subsequently, the Respondent issued a notice under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants Act), which was also challenged by the Petitioner by filing a separate Writ Petition in W.P.No.20693 of 1999 in which this Court was pleased to grant stay of the impugned notice.
5. While the facts stood thus, the petitioner club in order to protect the interest of its members decided to enter into a memorandum of
