Vishal.M.M vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner was a lessee of shop premises under the third respondent Temple. The Fair Rent Committee, headed by the third respondent, erroneously increased the rent retrospectively from June 30, 2016, to August 21, 2020, demanding an exorbitant amount of Rs. 76,40,710/-. The petitioner contended that this was done without affording an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. A statutory appeal was filed but refused for non-deposit of arrears. A Civil Revision Petition (CRP) was partly allowed, directing payment of fair rent from September 1, 2020. The appellate authority confirmed the original order, fixing rent from July 1, 2016. Subsequently, a demand of Rs. 1,17,56,555/- was made. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated November 25, 2022, and subsequent consequential orders, arguing that the issue of retrospective collection was not considered by any authority.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable, despite the availability of a revision petition, because the initiation of proceedings was against the dictum laid down in Writ Appeal No. 503 and 509 of 2022, which followed the principles established in the Angala Parameshwari case. The Court found that the enhanced rent was fixed without hearing the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the fixation of fair rent with retrospective effect is illegal. The petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced rent only from August 21, 2020, the date of the notice, until May 18, 2022, when the petitioner vacated the premises. The petitioner is not liable to pay the enhanced rent for the period prior to August 21, 2020, but is liable to pay the regular rent for that period. The impugned orders dated November 25, 2022, and all subsequent consequential orders were quashed. The respondents were directed to recalculate the enhanced rent for the period from August 21, 2020, to May 18, 2022, and collect the same within eight weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a revision petition under Section 34A(5) of the Act is available? AND The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because the issue of retrospective collection of rent was not considered by the Commissioner or subsequent authorities, nor was it dealt with in the CRP. The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as a revision petition under Section 34A(5) of the Act should have been filed within 90 days, and the petitioner is challenging only the Commissioner's order without challenging subsequent orders. 2. Whether the fixation of fair rent with retrospective effect is valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice? AND The petitioner contended that the fair rent was fixed without affording an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice, and citing the Angala Parameshwari case. The respondents argued that the fair rent was fixed based on G.O.Ms.No. 353 dated 04.06.1999 and Section 34-A of the Act, making the petitioner's grounds unsustainable.