JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the 2nd respondent relating to the Impugned Order bearing Na. Ka. No. 5215/2005/R9 dated 29.01.2015 issued by the respondents and quash the same in so far as it revises the lease rent by more than 15% from the existing rent and consequently direct the Respondents to revised the rent in accordance to G.O.Ms. No. 92 MA&WS in respect of the Apsara Theatre, Anna Gandhi Mani Mandapam Building at Gandhi Road, Krishnagiri.

1. The order dated 29.01.2015 issued by the Second Respondent extending the lease for a period of 3 years is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The lease was extended from 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2017 for a period of 3 years on certain conditions stipulated. The monthly rent was fixed as Rs. 61,045/- per month (excluding service tax). It is contended that the rent was fixed by enhancing 15% of the existing rent.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the enhancement of the rent is exorbitant and the rent is to be revised in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No. 92 dated 03.07.2007.

3. The Petitioner has stated that the Respondents are enhancing the rent in violation of the Government Scheme. Thus, the Petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The subject property belongs to the second respondent/District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter called ‘DRDA’ for short) and funded by the Central and State Governments.

5. The projects are implemented through the District Collector for the welfare of the people at large in that locality. The assets created, more specifically, the subject property in the present case was originally constructed as a marriage hall in the year 1982 and leased out to the Petitioner. The Petitioner converted the marriage hall as a cinema theatre for better income from and out of the said property. The authorities allowed such conversion and as of now, the building is running as a cinema theatre in the heart of the Krishnagiri Town.

6. The property is situated nearby Government Hospital, which is in prime locality. The lease was originally granted for a period of 10 years from 14.03.1982 to 14.03.1993. It was periodically renewed and rent also was revised.

7. The revision of rent and continuous renewal of lease in favour of the Petitioner for more than 3 decades created certain suspicious circumstances and this Court directed the Project Director, DRDA, Krishnagiri to file a report regarding the present status.

8. Mrs. Malarvizhi, Joint Director /Project Director, DRDA, Krishnagiri present before this court filed a status report stating that the subject building was leased out to one M/s. Mookambigai Enterprises, the writ petitioner from 01.02.1985 by the District Development Corporation, Dharmapuri and the lease was extended from time to time.

9. Further it was leased in favour of the petitioner from 01.12.2001 to 30.11.2011. The lease amount has been fixed as Rs. 25,000/- for the first two years and increased year by year and for the ninth and tenth year the lease amount has been fixed as Rs. 36,690/-.

10. During the lease period, on 02.07.2002, the District Development Corporation Administrative Committee has passed a resolution for the increase of lease amount as Rs. 61,045/- for the period from 27.06.2009 to 26.06.2010. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P. No. 39871 of 2002 and this Court passed an order on 23.04.2013:

“14. Further, it appears that subsequent to the expiry of the lease agreement, the second respondent and the petitioner herein have entered into an agreement for one year as per which Rs. 42,000/- has been fixed as rent and the same has also been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, as per the Lease Agreement dated 14.12.2001 as narrated earlier, if any arrear is due, the second respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to collect the same. Even if there is any di