N MANOHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, all these writ appeals are taken up together and disposed of by these common judgment, as the issue to be adjudicated is one and the same. Mr.R.Udhaya Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.A.S.Thambusamy, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the fourth respondent.

(2.) The appellants/writ petitioners claim that they are carrying on their trades and business in small shops allotted to them by the fourth respondent Municipality viz., Tiruvannamalai Municipality and most of the appellants/writ petitioners are carrying on small business such as eateries, tea shops, juice shops, sweet stall, bakery, bunk shop, Medical shop, call service centres, cycle shop, CD shops, electrical service shop etc., and the size of the shops alloted to them are ranging from 80 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft. It is further averred that the fourth respondent increased the lease amount every three years by 15% and it has been paid regularly and for that purpose, the respondents are adopting G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal and Administration Water Supplies (TN.4) Department, dated 03.07.2007. The appellants/writ petitioners would further state that though the lease period of 9 years came to an end by March 2017, the fourth respondent had issued a notice dated 11.03.2017 calling upon the appellants/writ petitioners to pay the demand revised from April 2017 onwards and according to the appellants/writ petitioners, the said notices are arbitrary and unreasonable for the reason that the details as to the quantum of enhanced lease amount has not been disclosed and since the appellants/petitioners are eking out their livelihood by carrying out commercial activities as small time traders, are not in a position to pay the same and in that event they are likely to be dispossessed and apart from themselves, their families are also eking out their livelihood and therefore, made a challenge in the form of declaration to declare the demand notice dated 11.03.2017 made by the 4th respondent Municipality by enhancing the existing rent more than 450%, is unsustainable.

(3.) The said writ petitions were entertained and the fourth respondent has filed the counter affidavit, wherein it is averred that the appellants/writ petitioners are in occupation right from the year 1982 onwards and originally, very meager amount was fixed as lease amount and it has been increased periodically by very small percentage and in most of the cases, the lessees are in occupation of the shops for more than 20 to 30 years and the lease amount paid was also very meager. Therefore, a decision has been taken to increase the same and accordingly, the fourth respondent had obtained guideline value and took into consideration the age, nature and location of the shops, fixed the market rate and based on which, the lease amount has been fixed and it cannot be faulted with. It is also the stand of the fourth respondent that the second respondent had issued instructions to the third respondent to form a committee to arrive at prevailing market rate and accordingly, the third respondent, vide proceeding dated 02.12.2016 bearing R.O.C.No.5527/2016/A2, had formed a Monitoring Committee consisting of the following members.