Dheenadhayalan vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Dheenadhayalan, filed two writ petitions concerning premises (Block No.3, Ranimangammal Chathiram, Madurai) leased from the Madurai Corporation. The first petition (W.P.(MD)No.761 of 2022) sought a direction to reopen the premises, which were locked and sealed by the respondent Corporation. The second petition (W.P.(MD)No.2421 of 2022) challenged notices demanding arrears of rent amounting to Rs.99,72,942/-. The petitioner's late father was the original licensee. The Corporation revised the rent in 2017 as per G.O.Ms.No.92, leading to arrears. The petitioner contended that the rent hike was arbitrary, without a hearing, and that objections were ignored. He also claimed notices were sent to a deceased person and that similarly placed licensees were not treated the same. The Corporation stated that the petitioner failed to pay the revised rent despite notices, leading to the sealing of the premises.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of laches, having slept over his rights for almost five years since the rent revision in 2017. The petitioner's contention that notices were sent to a dead person was dismissed as it was raised after a considerable delay, especially since the petitioner himself was in possession since his father's death in 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner continued to pay the old rent and did not approach the Corporation for renewal or payment of revised rent, despite occupying a prime locality. The Court referred to a previous order in similar cases, holding that petitioners could not question the revised license fees and should either accept the offer or vacate. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petitions. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a request to the respondent Corporation for removal of articles from the licensed premises within one week, and the Corporation was directed to permit the removal after taking an inventory. The Corporation was also granted liberty to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner as per law. The Court dismissed both writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Madurai Corporation's revision of rent for the licensed premises, as per G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007, was illegal for not affording a fair hearing to the petitioner or his late father, and for not considering their objections, thereby rendering the consequential demand for arrears of rent invalid? 2. Whether the sealing of the licensed premises by the Madurai Corporation was justified, given the petitioner's contentions regarding the alleged illegality of the rent revision and the notices being sent to a deceased person? 3. Whether the petitioner is guilty of laches in challenging the rent revision and the subsequent actions of the Corporation after a significant delay? Petitioner's arguments: The rent revision was a 500% hike without a hearing. Objections raised by his late father were not considered. Notices were sent to a dead person. Other licensees were not treated similarly, indicating discrimination. Articles worth over Rs.10,00,000/- are locked inside. Respondent's arguments: The petitioner failed to pay the revised rent despite sufficient notices. The rent revision was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.92. The petitioner challenged the 2017 proceedings only in 2022, after an interim order was granted in the first petition. No indulgence should be shown due to non-payment of arrears and the mounting revenue loss to the Corporation.