M.Khadhar Batcha vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M. Kadhar Batcha, operates a shop leased from the Tirunelveli Corporation. The lease terms stipulated periodic rent enhancements. Following construction of new shops, the Corporation sought to revise the rent for existing shops to Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. and demanded an additional security deposit. The petitioner challenged an eviction order and, subsequently, the Supreme Court, in SLP(C) Nos. 27248-27249 of 2023, directed the rent to be refixed at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. upon the petitioner furnishing an undertaking. Despite this, the respondents issued a Demand Notice dated 15.07.2025, demanding arrears at Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. and an enhanced rate of Rs. 258.75 per sq. ft. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice and have the rent adjusted as per the Supreme Court's order.

Held

The Court held that the Demand Notice dated 15.07.2025 issued by the second respondent was in direct violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.12.2023 in SLP(C) Nos. 27248-27249 of 2023. The Supreme Court had fixed the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. based on a representation made by the first respondent. Therefore, the present demand, which sought to collect rent at Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. and an enhanced rate of Rs. 258.75 per sq. ft., was contrary to the Supreme Court's clear direction. The Court relied on its own judgment in a similar matter (W.P.(MD) No. 21972 of 2025, etc., batch, dated 12.08.2025). The Court quashed the impugned Demand Notice and directed the respondents to refix the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to adjust the excess rental amount collected from the petitioner between January 2022 and May 2025 towards future rent payable by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Demand Notice dated 15.07.2025 issued by the second respondent is in violation of the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) Nos. 27248-27249 of 2023, which directed the rent to be refixed at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft.? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the demand notice directly contravenes the Supreme Court's order, which fixed the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. They argued that the respondents are forcibly collecting rent at Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. plus GST, and the demand notice further escalates this amount, disregarding the apex court's directive. The petitioner also relied on a High Court judgment in a similar matter. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the violation of the Supreme Court order. The respondents' actions, as described in the facts, indicate a continued insistence on a higher rent despite the Supreme Court's order.