S.SELLAPANDI Vs. COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions have been filed for identical relief and therefore, we have heard all these Writ Petitions together and they are disposed of by this Common Order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we take W.P(MD)No.20247 of 2019 filed by Mr.S.Sellapandi, as the sample case, to note down the facts.

(3.) Mr.S.Sellapandi was allotted shop in Thiruvaiyaru Bus stand in Shop No.1. It is stated that the nature of grant is lease. The lease is said to have been periodically extended by complying with the norms of G.O.Ms.No.92, MAWS Department, dated 3.7.2007 and after expiry of period of nine years, the Petitioner claims that the lease of the shop should be extended by revising the rent by market value in favour of the existing lessees. Accordingly, the lease is extended to the Petitioner and by proceedings of the Commissioner of the Thanjavur Municipal Corporation, dated 1.8.2017, the revision of rent was fixed with effect from 1.4.2016. The Petitioner would state that he is paying the revised rent without any default. However, the Petitioner would state that Thanjavur City has been selected as one of the city under Smart City Scheme of Central Government. Accordingly, the Municipal Bus Stand and other areas are sought to be renovated, for which, the respondent/Corporation has taken a decision to demolish the existing shops for reconstruction. The Petitioner would state that the shop where he is carrying on business is the only source of his livelihood as well as for the sustenance, apart from that, his employees also depends solely upon the Petitioner's business. It is further stated that in the event of any reconstruction under Smart City Scheme, the interest of the existing lessees like that of the Petitioner should be protected by providing alternative shops until the completion of Smart City Project as per the existing procedure followed in various Districts. It is contended that if this procedure is not followed, it will disturb the rights of the existing lessees and they will be put great hardship. Further it is submitted that the respondent/Corporation cannot all of a sudden decide and throw the Petitioner out of the premises and demolish the buildings without following the procedure. It is further submitted that there is no indication about the procedure to be complied with relating to the allotment of alternative shops and further restoration of shops to the Petitioner, after the completion of construction. Therefore, the Petitioner would state that the action of the respondents/Corporation in issuing the impugned notice is ex-facie arbitrary illegal and against law.