Fathima Beevi vs. The Superintendent Engineer

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier communication dated 08.07.2021, which informed her about the rent enhancement. The impugned notice dated 08.11.2021 was considered consequential to the earlier communication. The Court found no fault with the revision of rent, considering the previous low rent and the AG Audit remarks. It was also noted that the petitioner had previously filed a civil suit (O.S.No.218 of 2001) challenging the lease amount, which was dismissed in favour of TANGEDCO on 31.01.2008. The Court found that the petitioner had suppressed this fact. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not raised any other valid grounds to impugn the communication. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The writ petitioner challenged a notice dated 08.11.2021 from the fifth respondent (Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB) demanding arrears of rent until October 2021 and a new agreement for 2021-2022. The petitioner's husband, a project worker, was allotted land in 1951 for a cow shed and residence. The petitioner continued to reside there and pay rent, which was increased from Rs. 67 to Rs. 267 per month in 2018. The impugned notice demanded enhanced rent from June 2021, significantly increasing it to Rs. 2360 per month for 2360 sq.ft. The petitioner argued this increase was arbitrary and lacked particulars. The respondents contended the land was a temporary allotment for services during dam construction, not permanent. They stated the petitioner's husband was a camp follower, not a TNEB employee, and the land was allotted on a license fee basis. They also noted the petitioner's son was a TNEB employee who had vacated official quarters.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 08.11.2021, demanding enhanced rent and a new agreement, is illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondents are justified in revising the rent for the allotted land, considering the AG Audit remarks and the alleged increase in land value, as contended by the respondents? 3. Whether the petitioner's claim of permanent tenancy is valid, or if the allotment was a temporary license, as argued by the respondents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rent increase was excessive (over 200%) and the notice was non-speaking, lacking justification. She claimed to have paid rent without arrears until December 2021. She also presented receipts showing rent payment for the period January-December 2021. The petitioner highlighted that the building on the property was in a damaged condition. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the land was allotted on a license fee basis for temporary services during dam construction and not permanently. They stated the petitioner's husband was a camp follower. They asserted that the rent revision was based on AG Audit remarks due to increased land value and that the petitioner had previously filed and lost a civil suit (O.S.No.218 of 2001) challenging the lease amount. They also pointed out that the communication dated 08.07.2021, informing about the rent enhancement, was not challenged by the petitioner.