AKBAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.A.S.Thambusamy, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.

(2.) The writ petitioners / appellants claim to be the licencees / lessees in respect of Shops No.8, 5, 9, 10 of Muthuvinayagar Kovil Street, Polur Road Shop as well as Shops No.1, 2, 6 3, 4 and 11 of Vandimedu, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District and according to them, each of them are in possession of the shops having measurement of 150 sq.ft. to 250 sq.ft. and they are paying the existing license amount / lease amount of Rs.1348/-, Rs.1909/- [Akbar Khan], Rs.1348/-, Rs.1329/- [Mohammed Ali], Rs.353/-, Rs.382/- [B.C.Baba John], Rs.293/- [A.Raheem Bog], Rs.412/-, Rs.382/- [K.Yasin] and Rs.293/- [Ellai] respectively. They claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the said shops for very many years and that the lease has also been extended in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007. The writ petitioners / appellants expressed the grievance that the 4th respondent Municipality without putting them on notice and without following due process of law, has enhanced the said lease/licence amount manifold and directed them to pay the revised rents at the rate of Rs.4157/- and Rs.11250/- [Akbar Khan.M], Rs.4157/- and Rs.4157/- [Mohammed Ali], Rs.1866/- and Rs.1866/- [B.C.Baba John], Rs.1866/- [A.Raheem Bog] ; Rs.1866/- and Rs.1866/- [K.Yasin] and Rs.1866/- [Ellai] and challenging the same, they filed WP.No.17268/2016.

(3.) The writ petition was entertained and counter affidavit has been filed. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the factual aspects and the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in [P.V.Subramanian Vs. Secretary to Government, (2015) 4 MadLJ 164], had dismissed the writ petition and it is relevant to extract paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the said order:-