Ari Rama Jeyam.R vs. The Sports Development Authority Of Tamilnadu

Facts

The petitioners, who were in possession of several shops at the Arignar Anna Stadium, Nagercoil, filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu to fix the rent at Rs. 10,000/- per month (including GST) and allot specific shop numbers to them. The petitioners had previously leased these shops, but their leases were terminated, leading to eviction notices and subsequent sealing of the shops. They had also challenged these actions in earlier writ petitions and civil appeals. The respondents published tender-cum-public auction notifications for the shops, but the petitioners claimed the lease amounts were too high, resulting in no bids. The petitioners then made a representation to fix the rent at Rs. 10,000/- including GST, which was not considered. The respondents argued that the petitioners did not participate in the auctions and that the shops were auctioned for amounts significantly higher than Rs. 10,000/-.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the petitioners had a checkered history of filing multiple writ petitions and had previously been directed to participate in the auction process. The Court found that the petitioners had not participated in the auction and could not now approach the Court again to compel the authorities to fix the rent. The Court reiterated that it was left open to the petitioners to participate in the tender process. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioners could not sabotage the auction proceedings. No costs were awarded. The Court did not decide on the merits of the lease agreements or the eviction process, as the petitions were dismissed on procedural grounds related to participation in the auction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to fix the rent for the shops at Rs. 10,000/- (including GST) and allot them to the petitioners, despite the petitioners not participating in the public auction process? The petitioners argued that they had been in possession of the shops for a long time and that the previous lease amounts were significantly lower. They contended that the tender-cum-public auction notifications resulted in no bids due to the excessively high lease amounts. They sought a direction to fix a reasonable rent of Rs. 10,000/- including GST, based on their representation. They relied on their long-standing possession and the failure of the auction process. The respondents argued that the petitioners had a checkered history of filing multiple writ petitions and that they had been directed to participate in the auction process. They stated that the shops were auctioned for amounts exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and that there was no possibility of allotting them for the meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/-. They contended that the authorities were not inclined to fix the rent as requested and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions. They emphasized that the petitioners could not compel the authorities to fix the rent and should participate in the tender process.