ABDUL SAMAD Vs. COMMISSIONER VILLUPURAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No.14605 of 2017, is the appellant herein and aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition as well as connected writ petitions, vide common order dated 20.11.2017, has filed this writ appeal. The appellant / writ petitioner would aver that he was a successful bidder in respect of Shop No.12, Hospital Road Complex and he was given allotment of the said shop bearing Allotment No.044/145 initially for a period of three years from 30.01.1996 to 31.03.1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.436/- for the next three years. The petitioner has paid an enhanced rent at the rate of 15% of the original lease amount and continue to pay the said amount in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (NaNi4) Department, dated 03.07.2007. The petitioner would claim that he is a small time business operator and however to his shock and surprise, he was issued with the impugned notice dated 01.03.2017 by the respondent by enhancing the monthly rent from Rs.984/- to Rs.12562/- and the said demand is arbitrary, very much on the higher side and also in violation of the above cited Government Order. Therefore, made a challenge to the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the writ petition, with a further direction directing the respondents to renew the lease of the shop. The writ petition was entertained and notices were ordered and the respondent took a stand that the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were in possession and enjoyment of the shops in question for very many years and in order to augment the revenue of the local body, a fair decision has been taken to increase the license amount and the Committee has also gone into the issue and took a fair decision to increase the license amount and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Judge, after taking note of the factual aspects of the case and by placing reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P.V.Subramanian V. Secretary to Government, 2015 4 MadLJ 164, found that the respondent Municipality has fixed the rent with all due consideration and since the writ petitioners including the appellant herein have been in occupation of the premises for several years, they want to accept the enhancement of lease amount, otherwise, granted liberty to the respondent Municipality to go ahead with the auction and also granted liberty to the petitioner to participate in the public auction and till such time the auction is announced, the petitioners may continue to remain in possession of the same. If the auction consequently completed, possession may be handed over and Police aid can also be sought for, if required. The writ petitioner, challenging the legality of the said order, has filed this writ appeal.