S.Samydurai vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, S. Samydurai, a shopkeeper in a bus stand, challenged a demand notice dated 05.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation. The petitioner sought to quash the notice and have his rent refixed at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month, as directed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 27248-27249 of 2023. He also sought adjustment of excess rent collected from January 2022 to May 2025. The petitioner's lease was renewed in 2016 with a 15% enhancement every nine years. Following construction of new shops, the respondents attempted to revise the rent to Rs. 225/- per sq. ft., which was challenged. After a series of legal challenges, the Supreme Court directed the rent to be refixed at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. The petitioner contends the current demand notice violates this order.

Held

The Court held that the Demand Notice dated 05.04.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent was in direct violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 27248–27249 and 27739–27756 of 2023, dated 13.12.2023. The Supreme Court had fixed the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. based on the representation made by the first respondent (Corporation) itself. Therefore, the present demand for rent at higher rates was unsustainable. The Court found support for its view in a similar judgment of this High Court. The ratio decidendi is that any demand for rent that contradicts a specific order of the Supreme Court, especially when based on the revenue authority's own submissions, is invalid. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned demand notice, and directed the respondents to refix the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. It further directed the adjustment of excess rental amounts collected from January 2022 to May 2025 towards future rent payable by the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Demand Notice dated 05.04.2025 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 directed the refixing of rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand notice, demanding rent at Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. and an enhanced rate of Rs. 258.75 per sq. ft., directly contravenes the Supreme Court's order fixing the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. He relied on the Supreme Court's direction which was based on the Corporation's own proposal to reduce the lease rental. The petitioner also cited a similar judgment from this High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 21972 of 2025, etc. batch, dated 12.08.2025. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the existence of the demand notice implies their contention that the rent demanded was legally permissible.