M.Dhanraj v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).Nos.17497 of 2018 & 23113 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15377 of 2018 & 19562 of 2021 In W.P.(MD)No.17497 of 2018 M.Dhanaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner, Sattur Municipality, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent impugned order dated 03.07.2018 and quash the same, consequently directing the respondent to revise the rent for actual extent of the Shop in 168 Sq.ft. in respect of the petitioner's Shop No.9, R.C Street, Main Road, Sattur Town, Virudhunagar District.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Mahalakhsmi For Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan In W.P.(MD)No.23113 of 2021 M.Dhanaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner, Sattur Municipality, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice vide Assessment number 128/29-mutton stall shop no.9 main road, Sattur, Virudhunagar District 02.12.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to revise the rent for actual extent of the Shop in 168 sq.ft. instead of 392 sq.ft. pertaining to the Shop no.9. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan 2/5
COMMON
ORDER
W.P.(MD)No.17497 of 2018 & W.P.(MD)No.23113 of 2021 have been filed by the lessee of a shop of the respondent municipality challenging the demand notices for the lease amount.
2. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he has challenged the demand notice for the rental amount for the period covering 2016 to 2018 in W.P.(MD)No.17497 of 2018. He has challenged the another demand notice for the period covering 2016 to 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.23113 of 2021.
3. The primary grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he had occupied only 168 square feet of the building of the respondent municipality, the present demand notices have been issued as if the petitioner is occupying 392 square feet of the building belonging to the municipality.
3/5
4. In view of the above said facts, the impugned demand notices in both the writ petitions are hereby set aside. The respondent municipality is directed to inspect the subject property after giving notice to the writ petitioner and measure the square feet of area occupied by him and after measuring the area, the respondent municipality is at liberty to issue fresh demand notices. In case if there is any resistance from the writ petitioner for measuring the subject property, the respondent municipality is entitled to seek police protection for the same.
5. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.12.2025 Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No rmi 4/5
R.
VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
rmi Order made in W.P.(MD).Nos.17497 of 2018 & 23113 of 2021 17.12.2025 5/5