S. Vimala, J.

“All power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist." Discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise....”

- Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand, (1980) 4 SCC 162.

1.1. When the duty to obey the law is a fundamental duty and when the statutory authority has the opportunity to discharge the duty in accordance with law, whether it is open to the statutory authority to act otherwise than in accordance with law. In other words, whether the observations made in the Municipal Council, Ratlam's case would apply to the respondent herein.

1.2. When there are dual protections available to a tenant, i.e., (i) protection from eviction and (ii) protection from exploitation of excess rent, is it not enjoined upon the statutory authority, i.e., the respondent, from following the statute in dealing with the tenants?

These are the issues raised in these cases.

2. Question of law and question of facts raised is common in all these cases and hence, the common order.

3. These writ petitions have been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2016, by which, a) enhancement of rent has been ordered with effect from 01.11.2016 b) the petitioners have been directed to pay 12 months rent as advance and for consequential direction to the respondent to fix the fair rent as per Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

4. Brief facts:

i. The Kovilpatti Municipal Daily Market was established in the year 1970. At the time of inception, there was neither infrastructure nor amenities. There was no facility for cleaning.

ii. 347 shops were functioning in daily market. In order to provide better facilities for the shopkeepers and public, some of the shopkeepers joined together and formed an Association, by name, Kovilpatti Nagaratchi Dhinasari Sandhai Viyabarigal Sangam, which was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society was periodically submitting returns to the Registrar. The Society provided security, sanitation and water facilities to the public.

iii. Depending upon the extent of occupation, each of the occupant of the shop was paying rent, ranging from Rs. 12/-. The Municipal Council proposed to enhance the rent by 400% to 450%. The resolution to that effect was brought into the council, but, later on, it was passed with modification of enhancement by 300% to 350%. The Society sent objections, but, there was no response.

iv. The respondent passed an order dated 20.03.2013, enhancing the daily rent from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 40/-; from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 45/-; from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 60/-; Rs. 25/- to Rs. 75/-; Rs. 30/- to Rs. 90/- and from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 120/-. When it was challenged, this Court granted an order of injunction. Thereafter, there was a peace committee meeting. The respondent agreed for enhancement of rent at 60%. But, resolution was passed enhancing the rent by 240% to 290%.

v. The society filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8413 of 2013, seeking to quash the resolution, wherein, stay was granted on 16.05.2013. Therefore, the rent is collected as per the earlier rate and the said writ petition is pending.

vi. Pending the writ petition, this impugned order dated 27.10.2016 was passed, imposing enhancement of daily rent by 750% to 1400%, on all shopkeepers, with effect from 01.11.2016. Later, the writ petition has been withdrawn on 23.11.2016.

vii. Government of Tamilnadu, in G.O.Ms. No. 92, dated 03.07.2007 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department), provided for renewal of lease of properties once in three years with enhancement of rate at 15%. Contrary to the G.O., the respondent has enhanced the rent.

viii. Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and the rules framed thereon are silent about the method of determination of the annual rental value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other Hon'ble High Courts in a catena of decisions have he