Matheshwaran.G vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioners are lessees of shops at the New Bus Stand, Karur, who have been engaged in business there. They pay rent, property tax, and GST. The respondent, Karur Corporation, issued notices to refix the lease amount significantly higher than the existing rent, effective from July 2016. The petitioners challenged this unilateral fixation, alleging no notice or inquiry was conducted. Previous writ petitions led to orders for a Rent Refixation Committee to consider objections and refix rents. However, the respondent allegedly passed orders fixing rent without following court directions. Subsequent orders quashed these fixation orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions seeking a mandamus to prevent interference with their possession until the final order of December 4, 2020, is implemented, and to consider their representations for renewing licenses and refixing rent.

Held

The Court directed the Statutory Committee of the respondent Corporation to conduct a meeting for refixing the 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 petitioners are directed to pay the arrears of rent as refixed by the respondent within the time prescribed by the respondent. Failure to do so would empower the respondent to evict the petitioners from the shops by following due legal procedure. The entire process, including issuing individual notices by registered post with acknowledgment due and the petitioners appearing to express their grievances, must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court emphasized that the respondent should issue individual notices to the petitioners and that the petitioners must appear on the dates mentioned in the notice without fail. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-Corporation can refix the lease amount for the shops without following the principles of natural justice and the specific directions issued by this Court in previous orders, particularly concerning notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners? 2. Whether the respondent-Corporation has the statutory authority to refix the rent unilaterally, or if it must adhere to the established procedures and committee recommendations as directed by the Court? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the respondent has repeatedly violated court orders by refixing rent without proper notice, inquiry, or adherence to the established procedures. They argued that the respondent's actions are arbitrary and violate the principles of natural justice. They relied on previous court orders that quashed arbitrary rent fixation and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Respondent's arguments: The respondent stated that various litigations are pending. They claimed that petitioners have paid arrears which were received, and no threats were made or undue insistence on arrears. They also stated that possession has not been disturbed and they will not dispossess the petitioners. They acknowledged that a committee was formed to refix rent as per court orders and that Karur is now a Corporation with a statutory committee for rent fixation.