S.Karthika v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.8100, 8102 & 8103 of 2019 and WMP.Nos.8691, 8692 & 8693 of 2019 1.S.Karthika ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8100 of 2019 2.K.Selvarajan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8102 of 2019 3.K.Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8103 of 2019 Vs.

The Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent in all W.P.Nos.

COMMON PRAYER :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.14703/2016/A2, dated 31.07.2018 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam (in all W.P.s') For Respondent : Mr.B.Anand Government Advocate (in all W.P.s') * * * * * COMMON ORDER The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.14703/2016/A2, dated 31.07.2018 and quash the same.

2.By consent of the both the parties the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent to pay the arrears of lease rent with retrospective effect from 01.07.2016. Some of the leasees connected to the similar matter have approached this Court, challenging the very same demand notice made by the Municipality with retrospective effect. This Court by its order dated 21.12.2018 in W.P.No.28293 etc., batch of 2018 has partly allowed the writ petitions by upholding that the respondent Municipality cannot demand to pay the arrears of rent with retrospective effect. To that extent, these Writ Petitions are to be allowed and the present writ petitions are also covered by the order passed by this Court.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Municipality has also not disputed the present cases on hand and also the covered order passed by this Court.

5.This Court considered that it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph Nos.13 to 16 in the W.P.No.28293 etc., batch of 2018 dated 21.12.2018 as follows:

"13. So far as the last contention of the petitioners was that, already the respondent Municipality has renewed lease period upto 2019, and the petitioners are also paying the lease amount upto 2018, it is not open to the Municipality to direct the petitioners to pay the revised rent retrospectively from 01.07.2016, and so far as the part of the order directing the petitioner to revise the lease amount from 01.07.2016 is liable to be set-aside.

14. I find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. From a perusal of the records, in most of the cases, the lease had been renewed in the year 2016 for the period up to 31.03.2018, by revising the lease amount and the petitioner is also paying the revised lease amount. Now, after renewing the lease and also asking the petitioners to pay the revised lease amount, it is not open to the respondent direct them to pay the revised lease amount retrospectively from the 01.07.2016. Even G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007, is not authorizing the respondent to collect the lease amount retrospectively. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent can revise the lease amount only prospectively and not retrospectively from

the year 2016.

15. The impugned notice is only an offer made by the respondent-Municipality to the petitioners for paying the revised lease amount, and it is for them to accept or not.

There is no compulsion on the part of the petitioners to accept the same. If the petitioners are not willing to accept the offer, it is always open to the Municipality to bring the properties for public auction.

In the said circumstances, I find no merits in the contention in the writ petitions.

16. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed with a direction to the respondent-Municipality to revise the lease amount only prospectively from the year 2018. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

6.In the light of the above covered order passed by this Court, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petitions are partly allowed. It is make it clear to the petitioners to pay the arrears lease amount to the respondent Municipality from 01.04.2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed with the above direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ah To The Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

+3ccs Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate in sr.no.27843 W.P.Nos.8100, 8102 & 8103 of 2019 BS(CO) CS/03/04/2019