BALAKRISHNA AMMAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, very fairly in our opinion, seeks to withdraw the impugned notice of enhancement of rent with effect from 1974 or as the case may be, the commencement of the lease. The decision to withdraw the notice is absolutely correct because, no enhancement could have been sought as it has been done in the impugned notice without there being any power to that effect. It is undoubtedly true that the Government has ultimately come out with G.O.Ms.No.1926 dated 16.12.1987. The learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board says that the Board would be enhancing the rent only on the basis of this G.O. The said G.O has been perused by us very closely. It does not provide for a retrospective enhancement of the rent. Clause 2-v of the G.O is as under:

(2.) It is clear that this clause is not retrospective. Therefore, the market rate could be effected only from 16.12.1987 and not earlier. The learned counsel for the Housing Board seeks the permission to do exactly that. It will be for the Housing Board to serve the notice of the enhanced rent and / or any other thing which is covered by the G.O, but in the light of the judgment of this Court whereby this court had directed the Board to take steps under Section 84(4) of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1971.

(3.) Once the impugned notice is agreed to be withdrawn, there will be no cause to continue with the writ petitions. Hence, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants seeks to withdraw the writ petitions. The writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing counsel for the Housing Board. Since the writ petitions have been withdrawn, the writ appeals have become infructuous. The writ petitions and writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. WAMPs 4620 to 4626 of 2002 and WPMPs 20307 to 20310 of 2002 are closed.