S. KANAKAMBUJAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the appellants are to pay rent at the enhanced rate for the shop Nos.3 and 2 belonging to the respondent Corporation in which the appellants are in occupation as lessees is the point falling for consideration in these writ appeals. The 2nd appellant is arrayed as a party in the writ appeal on the death of his father - A.Nataraja Nadar,

(2.) ND petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The appellants are in enjoyment of shops Nos.3 and 2 for more than 31 years. In the year 1999, when the 1st appellant and father of 2nd appellant - 2nd petitioner in Writ Petition applied for renewal of lease, as per G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.12.2000, the rent was enhanced by 15% and the rent was fixed at Rs.1,215.00 and Rs.1,208.00 respectively. The respondent - Corporation issued impugned notices in Na.Ka.No.4318/2002/A1 dated 20.4.2004 renewing the lease of 1st appellant and father of 2nd appellant and enhancing the rent for the shop Nos.3 and 2 from Rs.1,215.00 and Rs.1,208.00 to Rs.4,500.00 per month for each shop and demanded the enhanced rent for the period from 21.1.2002 and further called upon them to pay a sum of Rs.54,000.00 as advance. Stating that any increase in rent is against law and as against G.O.Ms.No.147 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 30.12.2000, the 1st appellant and 2nd writ petitioner - father of 2nd appellant have filed the writ petition - W.P.(MD) No.3143 of 2006 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned notices Na.Ka.No.4318/2002/A1 dated 20.4.2004.

(3.) MR .N.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for appellants has contended that G.O.Ms.No.147 M.A. & W.S.Department, dated 30.12.2000 mandates the respondent Corporation to increase the monthly rent only upto 15% of the existing rent and the present action of Corporation increasing rent hundred times is illegal. It was further submitted that the process of increasing the rent by hundred times is without any notice to the 1st appellant and 2nd writ petitioner and the learned judge ought to have considered that as per G.O.Ms.No.147, M.A. & W.S.Department, dated 30.12.2000, the Municipal Corporation Council has to extend the lease period for existing shop keepers and therefore the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside.