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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The Clarke School for the Deaf and Mentally Retarded – Appellant
Versus
The Executive Officer –Respondent
W.P.No.2649 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided on : 09-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Kandasamy for M/s.A.K.Kailasam Associates, Mr.Arun Natarajan

The court determined that a fresh lease agreement is unnecessary for a reduced area and mandated the petitioner to pay specified arrears and monthly rent.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2014 regarding fair rent fixation for property occupied by the petitioner - The petitioner agreed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.5,63,338/- and sought waiver for the pandemic period - The court directed the petitioner to pay the arrears and fixed the monthly rent for the retained area of 2.27 acres at Rs.4,082/- until 30.06.2025. (Paras 1, 12, 15)

(B) Lease Agreement - Fresh lease not required for reduced area - The court held that a fresh lease agreement is unnecessary when the area under occupation has decreased, and the rent must be fixed accordingly. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent regarding rent fixation and sought to quash the order dated 24.12.2014. The petitioner agreed to pay arrears and requested a waiver for the pandemic period. The court considered the service rendered by the petitioner School for differently abled children.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner must pay Rs.13,64,508/- as arrears and a monthly rent of Rs.4,082/- for the retained area until 30.06.2025.

Issues: The main issues were the fixation of fair rent and the necessity of a fresh lease agreement for the reduced area.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fresh lease is not required for a reduced area and that the petitioner must pay the determined rent.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent culminating in the order dated 24.12.2014 quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2015 to the first respondent and to fix the fair rent following the guidelines set out in the Government Order 456 dated 09.11.2007 for the property occupied by the petitioner in S.No.1378/2A in Senganmal Thiyor Village, Thiruporur Taluk and Kanchipuram District.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 24.12.2014 and for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated 03.01.2015 and fix a fair rent following the guidelines set out in G.O.(Ms.) No.456, dated 09.11.2007.

2. The issue involved in the present writ petition and the various developments that took place during the pendency of this writ petition is reflected in various orders passed by this Court during the pendency of this case.

3. Those orders were all captured in the order passed on 14.06.2024 and the same is extracted hereunder:

    “This writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 24.12.2014 and for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 03.01.2015, made by the petitioner and to fix the fair rent following the guidelines set out in G.O.No.446 dated 9.11.2007, for the subject property.

    2. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.6.2022, the following order was passed by this Court :

    “The grounds that have been raised in this writ petition requires a counter affidavit to be filed by the 1st respondent. In the meantime, even in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, 24.12.2014, it has been stated that out of 8.24 acres which is in the occupation of the petitioner School, only two acres has been put to use and the remaining 6.24 acres is unutilised and hence, a proposal was given to the School to hand over the unutilised portion of the land so that the 1st respondent will be able to fix a lease amount for the land which is actually in the occupation of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks for sometime to take instructions in this regard.

    2. Post this writ petition under the caption “adjourned cases” on 07.07.2022.

    3. The case was thereafter listed for hearing on 28.7.2022 after the counter affidavit was filed by the respondent and a reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner and the following order was passed by this Court.

    Pursuant to the earlier orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit. The petitioner has made the following offer in the affidavit.

    a) I state that the Respondent vide their communication dated 14.08.2012 (appended hereto) have set out details as to how the arrears of rent have been calculated in the present case and had informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.5,63,338/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Eight only) is the arrears of rent pending till 14.08.2012 as per the said calculation of the respondent. I state that the petitioner to resolve issues amicably is agreeable to the said communication sent by the respondent on 14.08.2012 and is agreeable and willing to pay the said amount of Rs.5,63,338/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Eight only) within a period of four weeks from today as rent due till 2012. It is noticed that the said sum has been arrived after giving credit to the payments made by the petitioner.

    b) I further state that with regard to the rent for the period pertaining to 2012 to 2022 on the same basis may be calculated by the fee fixation committee after giving the petitioner an opportunity to represent their case to the fee fixation committee in a manner known to law.

    c) From March 2020 to till Ma

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