BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 26.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

and

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7594 and 7595 of 2021

National Textile Corpn.Ltd.,

Represented by its Deputy General Manager

35-B, Somasundaram Mills Road,

Coimbatore- 641 009. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

Rep by its Secretary to Government,

Municipal Administration and Water supply Deaprtment,

St. George Fort,

Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Municipalities,

Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,

6th Floor Ezhilagam, Annex Building,

Chepauk, Chennai.

3. The Commissioner,

Corporation Officer, 166, Balamore Road,

Nagercoil,

Kannyakumari District – 629001. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7841/2017/A13 DATED 28.12.2020, on the file of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to extend the period of tenancy by formulating a committee for fixation of fair rend as per Clause - III of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and render justice.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.R.Laxman For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 28.12.2020 in which the lease rental had been fixed at a sum of Rs.39,500/- and subsequently direct the respondents to extend the tenancy by committee for fixation as per the Clause-III of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.

2. The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reads as follows:-

The petitioner would submit that they were running a rental show room at Shop.Nos.D, E & F from 01.04.1998. The total plinth area was 968 sq.ft. It is their contention that they are paying monthly rents regularly without any default. The same has been revised once again in three years for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.6016/- which rent was being paid by them till the date of filing of this writ petition. While so, the 3^rd respondent had revised the monthly rental Rs.6016/- to a sum of Rs.60,000/- with effect from 01.04.2018. The petitioner was required to remit revised rate of rent for the period of three years commencing from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018. The petitioner has also been remitting the rent on the revised rate without fail. All of a sudden by a proceedings dated 27.07.2018, the 3^rd respondent had enhanced the rent to a sum of Rs.13,200/- with effect from 01.04.2018 and further directed to deposit an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and an additional advance for 12 months of Rs.7,20,000/-.

3. The petitioner would submit that the enhanced rate of rent was

100%. The petitioner had submitted a reply dated 01.09.2018 requesting the respondents to reconsider revising the rent to affordable amounts. However the 3^rd respondent apart from rejecting the request had fixed the monthly rent at Rs.39,500/- along with GST and also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and 12 months advance of Rs.4,74,000/- by rejecting the petitioner's request dated 28.12.2020.

4. The petitioner would submit that though they had been inducted as a tenant, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.07.2007 would govern the terms and conditions of lease. The said G.O. provided in detail the method of fixation of rent, enhancement of rent, extension of lease and the procedure to be adopted after the completion of 9 years lease period. The Government Order contemplated extension of lease for a period of 9 years after the completion of 3 years from the date of enhancement of the lease rent was to be periodically enhanced at 15% of the existing rent as well. The petitioner would submit that they have from the date of inception as tenant utilized the shop for the purpose of runni