Palaniammal.R vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, R. Palaniammal, is a lessee of Shop No. 30 at the New Bus Stand, Karur. She has been operating a business in the shop and paying rent, taxes, and GST. The respondent, the Commissioner of Karur Corporation, issued a notice on 04.07.2017, unilaterally refixing the lease amount to Rs. 25,000/- per month from July 2016, without prior notice or inquiry. This refixation was challenged by the petitioner and other lessees in multiple writ petitions. Subsequent court orders directed the formation of a Rent Re-fixation Committee to consider objections and refix rents. However, the authorities allegedly failed to follow due procedure, leading to further litigation and orders remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent not to interfere with her peaceful possession until the final order is implemented, considering her representation dated 21.06.2022.

Held

The Court directed the Statutory Committee of the respondent Corporation to conduct a meeting for the re-fixation of rent for the shops in question on merits and in accordance with law. This process must include affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Following the refixation, the petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of rent as determined by the respondent within the prescribed time limit. Failure to do so would empower the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner, following due legal procedure. The entire process, including issuing notice by registered post with acknowledgment due and the petitioner's appearance to present her grievances, is to be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court noted that Karur was upgraded to a Corporation, implying the existence of a statutory committee for rent fixation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, the Commissioner of Karur Corporation, can proceed with the refixation of rent for the petitioner's shop without adhering to the principles of natural justice and prior court directions, particularly concerning the formation of a statutory committee and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent's actions in demanding arrears of rent based on a previously quashed order and threatening dispossession are lawful, given the ongoing litigation and the pendency of the petitioner's representation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent has repeatedly failed to follow court orders and principles of natural justice in refixing the rent. She argued that the respondent's actions are arbitrary and that her peaceful possession should not be disturbed until a proper refixation process is completed. She relied on previous court orders that quashed arbitrary fixation and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, submitted that various litigations are pending. They stated that the petitioner has paid arrears of rent and that no threats have been made or possession disturbed. They acknowledged that a committee was formed to refix rent as per court orders and that Karur's upgrade to a Corporation necessitates a statutory committee for rent fixation.