SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P. BALAMURUGAN — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT — Respondent
W.P. No. 26919 of 2017; Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 290, 291, 440, 441, 27648, -27655, 27998-28002, 28024-28029, 28693, 28695, 29577-29600, 30039-30053, 30079-30096 of 2017
Decided on : 12-10-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
A.R.L. Sundaresan, R. Ganesh Kumar, S.R. Rajagopal, A. Srijayanthi, R.S. Selvam, V. Anandhamoorthy, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reasonableness of rent enhancement, the duty of authorities to maintain Government Residential Quarters, and the misuse of public quota for allotments.

Headnote:

Rent Fixation - Government Rented Residential Quarters - G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) - 04.07.2017 - [G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) dated 04.07.2017, G.O.Ms.No.210, Housing and Urban Development (HB 5(1)) Department dated 21.08.2002, G.O.Ms.No.69, Housing and Urban Development [(HB 5(2)] Department dated 22.05.2009, G.O.Ms.No.8, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 05.01.1993] - The court discussed the reasonableness of rent enhancement, periodicity of rent revision, and the need to match market rent. It highlighted the duty of the authorities to maintain the buildings and the misuse of public quota for allotments.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved occupants of Government Rented Residential Quarters challenging the enhancement of rent by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioners claimed that the enhancement was unreasonable and exorbitant, defeating the purpose of public quota for poor and needy people.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the enhancement of rent was not unreasonable and was below the market rent prevailing in the locality. It also noted the poor maintenance of the Government Residential Quarters by the authorities.

Issues: The issues raised included the reasonableness of rent enhancement, misuse of public quota for allotments, and the duty of the authorities to maintain the buildings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rent enhancement was not unreasonable and emphasized the duty of the authorities to maintain the buildings. It also highlighted the misuse of public quota for allotments.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the impugned order of rent enhancement, directed eviction of occupants of dilapidated houses, and instructed the authorities to verify the eligibility criteria of occupants under discretionary quota and take action against illegal or irregular occupants. It also directed the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of defaulters, and mandated proper maintenance of the Government Rental accommodations.

JUDGMENT

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

The occupants of the Government Rented Residential Quarters under the Public quota are the petitioners in these writ petitions. The writ petitioners are in occupation of the Government Rented Quarters in various parts of Chennai City and more specifically, all such Government Quarters are situated in heart of the City. The dispute is in relation to the fixation of rent in respect of the occupants of the Government Rented Quarters maintained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

2. The Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) dated 04.07.2017 and the consequential covering Letter No.Va.Va.P.1/46173/2010 dated 07.07.2017 and the demand Letter No.P.Pa.Ko/00029/2017 dated 27.07.2017 are sought to be quashed. Further, a direction is sought for to direct the respondents to receive the old monthly rent from the petitioners tenanted premises situated in various part of the City.

3. The petitioners have raised the issues by stating that they had been allotted the Government Rented Quarters under the Public quota provided by the Government in various Government Quarters within the City. The Government of Tamil Nadu, during the year 1970 with a view to elevate the poor and downtrodden people of the society coming to the city for finding jobs and who were facing difficulty in getting flats for rent had directed the second respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board to build housing flats at various part of Chennai city to provide affordable flats at rent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had constructed flats at Peters Road, CIT Nagar, Cox Square, Foreshore Estate, Mandaveli over the lands belonging to the Government. Subsequently, the Government for maintenance and for providing other facilities to the tenants in all such buildings had appointed the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is maintaining all such Residential Quarters situated in various places within the city.

4. The 2nd respondent/The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the year 2002 raised a proposal to the Government to enhance the monthly rent of all the rental buildings in and around Chennai and the Government accepting the said proposal issued G.O.Ms.No.210, Housing and Urban Development (HB 5(1)) Department dated 21.08.2002. The Government had fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft for all the Board's rental houses/flats in Chennai and Rs. 3/- per sq.ft for all the Board's houses/flats in moffusil areas. At that point of time, some of the occupants approached the Hon'ble High Court and an order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3292/2002 dated 15.06.2006. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to evaluate the situation by collecting materials, and accordingly, the Court fixed the rent at the rate of 2.50 per sq.ft. in Chennai City except Cox square and Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. in as far as the individual houses and the rent was fixed at Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. the increased rent for the mofussil area was fixed at Rs. 1.50/- per sq.ft.

5. The petitioners claim that they are all paying the monthly rent punctually and without committing any default.

6. Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, forcibly contended that the impugned Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.118, Housing and Urban Development (HB5-2) Department dated 04.07.2017 is unreasonable on the ground that the Government has enhanced the monthly rent without reference to any materials available on record. The enhancement of rent is exorbitant and it was fixed with retrospective effect. Therefore, the impugned Government order and the consequential order are liable to be scrapped.

7. The petitioner states that the very purpose and object of providing public quota is to ensure that poor and needy people get rental accommodation within the city a

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top