M.Madhavan vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, a shopkeeper at the Tirunelveli Bus Stand, challenged a demand notice dated 29.07.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation. The petitioner sought to quash this notice and have the rent refixed at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month, as directed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 27248-27249 of 2023. The petitioner also sought adjustment of excess rent collected from January 2022 to May 2025 towards future rent. The petitioner's lease was renewed in 2016, with rent subject to a 15% enhancement every nine years. Following construction of new shops under the Smart City Scheme, the respondents orally directed shopkeepers to pay rent at par with newly constructed shops (Rs. 225/- per sq. ft.), demanding an additional security deposit and issuing an eviction order. This led to writ petitions, appeals, and ultimately Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Held

The Court held that the demand notice dated 29.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent was in direct violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.12.2023 in SLP(C) No. 27248-27249 of 2023. The Supreme Court had fixed the lease rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. based on a representation made by the first respondent itself. Therefore, the current demand was unsustainable. The Court also directed the respondents to adjust the excess rental amount collected from the petitioner for the period from January 2022 to May 2025 towards the future rent payable by the petitioner. The Court quashed the impugned demand notice and directed the respondents to refix the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. The ratio decidendi is that any demand or action by a subordinate authority that contravenes a clear direction from the Supreme Court is liable to be quashed, and such directions must be implemented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated 29.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is in violation of the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27248-27249 of 2023, which fixed the lease rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. 2. Whether the respondents are liable to adjust the excess rental amount collected from the petitioner during the period from January 2022 to May 2025 towards future rental payments. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the demand notice is contrary to the Supreme Court's order, which fixed the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. The petitioner also relied on a similar judgment by the High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 21972 of 2025. The petitioner contended that the respondents have been forcibly collecting Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. plus GST, despite the Supreme Court's direction. The petitioner sought adjustment of the excess rent collected. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the facts indicate they issued the demand notice and previously insisted on a revised rent of Rs. 225/- per sq. ft.