COMMISSIONER Vs. D.CHELLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in these writ appeals are identical, we have heard the matter together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellant in all the appeals is the Nagercoil Municipality and the respondents are the writ petitioners. The appellant/Nagercoil Municipality has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 12.10.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13391 to 13397 and 133420 to 13422 of 2017. The said writ petitions were filed by the first respondent in all these appeals, praying for a direction, to the appellant municipality to renew the lease in respect of shops bearing numbers.18, 13,11,12,15,16, 17, 14,19,20 respectively in Christopher Bus Stand, Vadasery, Nagercoil, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2017 and as per the proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 28.03.2017, at the rates fixed by the second respondent with effect from 01.04.2016. The writ petitions were disposed of by the common order, dated 12.10.2017, by referring the proceedings of the second respondent herein, dated 28.03.2017, which is a proceeding to fix monthly rent at an increased rate upto 100 to 150% over and above the existing rent in respect of the shops leased out to the respondents/writ petitioners. The Court recorded that the writ petitioners are agreeable for the increase as determined by the appellant and since such fixation of enhancement has not been questioned by the lessee, the appellant municipality was directed to accept the same and if the writ petitioners complied with the direction, the municipality was directed not to cause any hindrance to their business activities. The above said common order dated 12.10.2017 is impugned in these appeals.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellant municipality to accept the fixation of rent as done by the revision committee without considering the decision taken by the appellant municipality to demolish the existing shops, as the shops have become dilapidated and to construct new shops.