Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, R. THARANI, JJ.
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil - Appellant
Versus
D. Chellam & Another - Respondent
W.A.(MD)Nos. 1498 to 1507 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2018
Lease Laws – Renew Lease – Appellant in all the appeals is the Nagercoil Municipality and the respondents are the writ petitioners. – Appellant/Nagercoil Municipality has filed these appeals challenging the common order passed in W.P.(MD) – Said writ petitions were filed by the first respondent in all these appeals, praying for a direction, to the appellant municipality to renew the lease in respect of shops in Christopher Bus Stand, Vadasery, Nagercoil, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department, and as per the proceedings of the second respondent herein, at the rates fixed by the second respondent with effect from 01.04.2016. – Writ petitions were disposed of by the common order, by referring the proceedings of the second respondent herein, which is a proceeding to fix monthly rent at an increased rate upto 100 to 150% over and above the existing rent in respect of the shops leased out to the respondents/writ petitioners. – Court recorded that the writ petitioners are agreeable for the increase as determined by the appellant and since such fixation of enhancement has not been questioned by the lessee, the appellant municipality was directed to accept the same and if the writ petitioners complied with the direction, the municipality was directed not to cause any hindrance to their business activities. – The above said common order is impugned in these appeals. – Held, Court is unable to concede to the said submission as the Executive Officer is entitled to discharge all the functions exercisable by a validly elected municipal council. – The Government while bringing out the relevant amendment has not placed any fetters on the exercise of powers of the Executive Officers. In any event, we find that the power exercised by the Executive Officer has resulted in earning of substantial revenue for the appellant municipality. – In fact, this was noted by this Court in W.P.(MD) in respect of shop No.2, Saraloor, Buffalow market, Nagercoil, where the writ petitioner therein offered Rs.1,600/- but as per the re-notification by the second respondent, the auction of shops fetched a monthly licence fee of Rs.17,500/-. – The learned counsel for the appellant municipality submitted that such of those licensees, who had offered substantial amount in the tender, all licensees had paid the entire amount apart from the payment of advance of one year lease amount. – Court hold that the action initiated by the appellant municipality taking a decision not to bring the shops for tender/auction and to demolish the dilapidated shops and to construct new shops cannot be faulted nor interfered. – Court further hold that merely because the second respondent has passed the proceedings purportedly revising the lease rent, such order cannot be an estoppel for the appellant municipality to take appropriate decision, considering the best interest of the municipality. – In the instant case, the municipality decided to demolish the shops and to construct new shops to augment revenue and no mala fides have been established by the writ petitioners against such action. – The notice which was widely published in the newspaper clearly indicated that the shops occupied by the first respondent/writ petitioners are to be demolished. – Thus, the order passed in the writ petitions requires to be interfered. – Writ Appeals Allowed
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. Since the issue involved in these writ appeals are identical, we have heard the matter together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellant in all the appeals is the Nagercoil Municipality and the respondents are the writ petitioners. The appellant/Nagercoil Municipality has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 12.10.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13391 to 13397 and 133420 to 13422 of 2017. The said writ petitions were filed by the first respondent in all these appeals, praying for a direction, to the appellant municipality to renew the lease in respect of shops bearing numbers.18, 13,11,12,15,16, 17, 14,19,20 respectively in Christopher Bus Stand, Vadasery, Nagercoil, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2017 and as per the proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 28.03.2017, at the rates fixed by the second respondent with effect from 01.04.2016. The writ petitions were disposed of by the common order, dated 12.10.2017, by referring the proceedings of the second respondent herein, dated 28.03.2017, which is a proceeding to fix monthly rent at an increased rate upto 100 to 150% over and above the existing rent in respect of the shops leased out to the respondents/writ petitioners. The Court recorded that the writ petitioners are agreeable for the increase as determined by the appellant and since such fixation of enhancement has not been questioned by the lessee, the appellant municipality was directed to accept the same and if the writ petitioners complied with the direction, the municipality was directed not to cause any hindrance to their business activities. The above said common order dated 12.10.2017 is impugned in these appeals.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellant municipality to accept the fixation of rent as done by the revision committee without considering the decision taken by the appellant municipality to demolish the existing shops, as the shops have become dilapidated and to construct new shops.
4. Further, it is submitted that the appellant municipality, in its resolution, dated 04.07.2018, bearing resolution No.657 has proposed to call for tenders for construction of new shops in the proposed site after demolishing the existing shops. Pursuant to the same, one Mr.Vetrivelan was declared as highest tenderer and work order had been issued on 09.09.2016 and at this juncture, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed writ petitions with an intention to prevent the appellant municipality from demolishing the shops and putting up new construction.
5. Further it is submitted that the decision taken by the appellant municipality is not only to enhance revenue but also in the interest of public safety, as the buildings are in dilapidated condition.
6. Further, it is submitted that the Writ Court ought to have considered that the writ petitioners' licence expired on 31.03.2016 and after expiry, the writ petitioners have no right to continue in the premises.
7. Further, with regard to the applicability of G.O.Ms.92, it is submitted that the benefit was conferred only for nine years and the writ petitioners have already enjoyed the benefit of G.O.Ms.92 and once again, the same cannot be extended to them. It is submitted that though the licence period is over, because of the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions, they are compelled to collect rents from them without prejudice to their rights and unable to demolish the old construction for putting up new construction.
8. It is submitted that identical contentions as advanced by the writ petitioners were advanced before the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.1058 and 1086 of 2017 “C.Krishna Moorthy and others Vs. The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, Virudhunagar District”. The Division Bench, by an order dat
SupremeToday
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
