Venkatraman P.R vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, P.R. Venkatraman, is a lessee of Shop No. 5, Covai Road, Karur. He has been paying rent, tax, and GST periodically and has no arrears of rent until February 2018. The respondent, the Commissioner of Karur Corporation, unilaterally refixed the lease amount from Rs. 4,150/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month from July 2016 without issuing notice or conducting an enquiry. This led to multiple writ petitions and interim orders from the High Court directing the formation of a Rent Re-fixation Committee. Despite these orders, the respondent allegedly passed an order on 02.12.2019 fixing the rent without following court directions. Subsequently, the respondent threatened to lock and seal the premises due to alleged arrears of rent, which the petitioner disputes. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment as a lessee until the final order of a previous batch of writ petitions is implemented.

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent within two weeks as a part payment towards arrears of rent. Upon receipt of this payment, the respondent was directed to remove the lock and seal from the petitioner's shop. The Statutory Committee of the respondent Corporation was directed to conduct a meeting for the re-fixation of rent for the shops in question on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Once the rent is refixed, the petitioner is to pay the arrears of rent, after deducting the amount already paid, within the time prescribed by the respondent. Failure to do so would empower the respondent to evict the petitioner following due legal procedure. The entire process, including the rent refixation, was to be completed within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The respondent was also directed to issue notice to the petitioner via registered post with acknowledgment due, and the petitioner was directed to appear without fail to present his grievances regarding the rent refixation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent's action of threatening to lock and seal the petitioner's shop without a proper refixation of rent and without considering the previous court orders is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent, and if so, to what extent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the respondent is acting arbitrarily by threatening to seal his shop despite ongoing litigation and previous court orders directing a proper rent refixation process. He argues that the alleged arrears are disputed and that the respondent has failed to follow the directions of this Court in prior writ petitions, which had quashed earlier orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. He relies on the previous court orders that emphasized affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and passing final orders on merits. Respondent's arguments: The respondent claims that the petitioner is in arrears of rent exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- and that the shop was sealed and locked following due process of law on 10.10.2022. The respondent denies making any threats and states that a committee has already been formed to refix the rent as per court orders.