High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 24.10.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAW.P.(MD).No.29832 of 2025andW.M.P(MD)Nos.23075 and 23076 of 2025M.Madhavan ... PetitionerVs.1. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli – 627 001, Tirunelveli District.2. The Assistant Commissioner, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli – 627 001, Tirunelveli District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the “Demand Notice” dated 29.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025respondents to refix the rent at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.ft. per month as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of other shopkeepers in the order dated 13.12.2023 passed in SLP(C)No.27248-27249 of 2023 and further to direct the respondents to adjust the excessively collected rental amount from the petitioner during the period from January 2022 to May 2025, towards future rental to be paid by the petitioner. For Petitioner: Mr.R.BalamuruganathamFor Respondents: Mr.A.Sivanupandian Standing Counsel ORDERThe petitioner seeks to quash the Demand Notice dated 29.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to refix the rent at the rate of Rs.140/~ per sq. ft. per month and further to direct the respondents to adjust the excess rent collected from the petitioner for the period from January 2022 to May 2025 towards the future rent payable by the petitioner.2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 20252. Mr.A.Sivanupandian, learned Standing Counsel takes on behalf of the respondents. 3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent/Corporation had leased Shop No.S3, measuring 564 sq. ft. belonging to them, located at the bus stand, for a period of three years from 2021. A sum of Rs.1,35,000/- was fixed as rent. It is further submitted that the lease was subject to renewal once in three years, with an enhancement of 15% for every nine years. The petitioner submits that he is an allottee of the said bus stand and has been paying rent, including GST, on the 10th of every succeeding month without any delay. At this juncture, 60 new additional shops were opened in the bus stand and on the very same day the respondents officials forced the petitioner and the other shop keepers to execute a bond accepting that they would pay the revised rent at the rate of Rs.225/- per sq.ft., per month on par with the rent fixed to the 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025newly opened shops. However, the petitioner and the other shopkeepers refused to execute any such bond and opposed the revision of rent. However, no express order was passed by the respondent in this regard. While so, on 17.05.2022, the first respondent, vide eviction order in 114/2022/br/k/bjh/m-jpyp, evicted the petitioner and the other shopkeepers who did not pay the arbitrarily increased lease rental to Rs.225/- and further directed the petitioner and the shopkeepers to remove their belongings on or before 15 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court. 5. The petitioner submits that 60 additional shops were opened on 08.12.2021, and the petitioner reopened his shop on 10.12.2021. On the very same day, the respondents orally directed the petitioner and other shopkeepers to pay rent on par with the rent fixed for the newly constructed shops opened on 08.12.2021. In this regard, the petitioner and other shopkeepers were compelled to execute a bond accepting the revised rent. However, the petitioner and others refused to execute any such bond and opposed the proposed revision of rent. 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 20256. The respondents nevertheless threatened the shopkeepers and insisted that they accept the revised rent at the rate of Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. per month. In respect of the petitioner, the first respondent issued a rental revision order dated 15.12.2021. Subsequently, without issuing any prior show cause notice, the first respondent passed an eviction order dated 17.05.2022. Challenging the same, the shopkeepers filed W.P.(MD)No.10394 of 2022 to quash the eviction order dated 17.05.2022, published in Dinamani Daily on 18.05.2022, and for a consequential direction to permit them to continue in the leased shops until the expiry of the lease period. The said writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed W.A.(MD) No.1530 of 2022. It was reported before the Division Bench that except for 26 shops, the remaining 97 shops had given an undertaking agreeing to pay the revised lease rent of Rs.225/- per sq. ft. Therefore, an order of interim stay was granted for eight weeks and thereafter, the Division Bench, by order dated 30.11.2023, dismissed the writ petition. 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 20257. Aggrieved thereby, the shopkeepers filed SLP (C) Nos. 27248–27249 and 27739–27756 of 2023. In the meantime, the Corporation itself reduced the lease rent to Rs.140/- per sq. ft. Accordingly, the SLPs were disposed of by orders dated 13.12.2023 and 14.12.2023, directing the petitioners therein, including the present petitioner, to furnish an undertaking to pay rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. within a period of three weeks. It was further directed that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their respective shops. 8. The petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid orders, the rent payable is only Rs.140/- per sq. ft. However, the respondents have been forcibly collecting Rs. 225/- per sq. ft., i.e., monthly rent of Rs. 39,600/- plus GST. The first respondent has sent a proposal to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, to reduce the lease rent. While so, the second respondent issued a Demand Notice dated 15.07.2025, demanding arrears of rent at Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. and further at the enhanced rate of Rs.258.75 per sq. ft., which is in total violation of the 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. It is further submitted that the first respondent’s proposal to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, recommended a reduction of rent from Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. to Rs.90/- per sq. ft. for certain shops and platforms. Despite this, the respondents have not implemented the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixing the rent at Rs.140/- per sq. ft. for the shopkeepers. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 27248– 27249 and 27739–27756 of 2023, by order dated 13.12.2023, issued the following direction: “It is further submitted that the Municipal Corporation could not secure any person willing to pay the demanded 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025lease rate of Rs.225/- per sq. ft., and therefore, the Corporation on their own have reduced the lease rental to a much lower rate for the first floor shops. The petitioners are willing to match the reduced rate of Rs.140/- per sq. ft. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. The petitioners have agreed and subject to their furnishing individual undertaking to pay @ Rs.140/- per sq. ft within three weeks' time, the leaseeholders shall not be dispossessed from the respective shops.” 12. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the rate of rent only on the representation made by the first respondent himself. Therefore, the present demand is contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in a similar matter in W.P.(MD) No. 21972 of 2025, etc. batch, dated 12.08.2025, in support of his contention. 13. Even according to the petitioner, the rental amount is liable to be enhanced once in nine years. The petitioner had originally agreed to pay the enhanced rent for a further period of nine years commencing from 18.07.2016. It is also their case that once in nine years, the rent has to be 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 2025enhanced by 15%. However, the affidavit is silent about the original rent fixed in respect of the shops. 14. Be that as it may, the revised rate of Rs.225/- per sq. ft. was the subject matter of challenge, which ultimately resulted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing the respondents to refix the rent at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. The said order was passed in writ proceedings initiated in the year 2021. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Demand Notice dated 15.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refix the rent at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq. ft. per month, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of other shopkeepers, by order dated 13.12.2023 passed in SLP (C) No. 27248–27249 of 2023. Further, the respondents are directed to adjust the excess rental amount collected from the petitioner during the period from January 2022 to May 2025 towards the future rent payable by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 202524.10.2025NCC :yes/NoIndex :yes/NoInternet:yes/NorgmP.T.ASHA, J.rgmTo1. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli – 627 001, Tirunelveli District.2. The Assistant Commissioner, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli – 627 001, Tirunelveli District. W.P.(MD).No.29832 of 2025andW.M.P(MD)No.23075 and 23076 of 202510/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29832 of 202524.10.202511/11