R. Ansalam and R. Harihara Subramanian vs The Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Thachanallur Ward Office, Tirunelveli

K. Chandru, J.—These two Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners, who are allottee of shops in Thachanallur Zone situated in S.N. High Road, coming under the Tirunelveli Corporation. In the first Writ Petition, there are two petitioners, who have located the shop in shop Nos.1 and 2 belonging to the respondent Corporation. In the second Writ Petition, the petitioners are occupying shop Nos.3 and 2 in the same Complex. In these two Writ Petitions, all the four petitioners have challenged notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli dated 20.04.2004 informing the petitioners that the monthly rent for the above said shops has been revised, as per the resolution of the Corporation with effect from 21.01.2002. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to pay an advance of 12 months rent and also the difference in the rental for the period from 21.01.2002 to 31.03.2004. They were directed to pay the amount and also enter into a new agreement for renewal of the lease period. They were also informed that they must give a collateral security of property to the value of Rs.50,000/-for each shop and should renew the security in the beginning of January of each year, failing which, appropriate action will be initiated against them by the Corporation.

Both the Writ Petitions were admitted on 06.04.2006. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court granted an order of interim injunction without any condition. On notice from this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation appears. It is seen from the records that the petitioners are already occupying the shops and paying rent and subsequently, the State Government, by G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.12.2000, had enabled the Municipalities to give lease of their land and shop for a further period of three years without bringing them to any public auction and guidelines were issued. In the guidelines, the State Government enable them to offer the renewal of lease in favour of the existing shop occupants by enhancing the rent, by a further 15% from the existing rent. At the same time, in paragraph No.4 of the same Government Order, it is stated that the request received from the shop keepers along with the rental details should be placed before the Council and if the Council comes to the conclusion that public auction should be avoided, then approval for grant of lease should be granted in favour of the existing shop keeper, on the basis of the newly fixed rent and after obtaining the consent of the shop keepers, the arrangement can be entered into.

The petitioners, after issuing the Government Order, sent letters dated 03.01.2002, asking for renewal of lease. A resolution was passed by the Corporation in Resolution No.1249, dated 27.11.2002 and thereafter, the Commissioner for Municipal Administration also sent a communication dated 02.12.2003, clarifying the Government Order. Once again, the Council, by a resolution No.1525, dated 17.12.2003, dealt with the allotment of renewal of lease in favour of the existing shop keepers. It is pursuant to those proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner, has issued the impugned notices. The petitioners, for reasons best known, did not make the Corporation of Tirunelveli as a party-respondent. Under the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation Act, the Corporation can be sued only in the name of Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner and no Zonal Officer can represent the Commissioner. Perhaps, the petitioners want to take advantage of an interim order by impleading a Subordinate Officer, who is not in a position to determine the policy matters regarding Corporation. Both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the short ground of non-joinder of proper parties. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while the petitioners are not willing to pay 15% enhanced rent, the present increase to 100 times, that too, with retrospective effect, is not acceptable to them. If that is the stand of the petitioners, then the enabling provision of G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.12.2000 will not accrue to their benefit, because under the said Government Order, the Government has merely issued only guidelines for Municipalities to adopt, so that, there can be uniformed practice in all Municipalities and Corporations and even the Government did not want to give any directions, which it obviously lacks under the relevant enactment, viz., the Municipal Corporation Act of Tirunelveli and they were careful enough to state that the request for renewal together with the offer and fixation of rent should be placed before the Council and only after the approval of the Council, any renewal can be made.

In the present case, though the counsel for the petitioners contended that the Municipal Corporation has approved the revised rent for not with retrospective effect, that contention cannot be accepted, because the resolution of the Municipality is not before this Court. In any event, it is only in the stage of offer and acceptance and the petitioners are not inclined to accept the offer. Even under the relevant Municipal law, the properties will have to be brought only under public auction, as the intention of the Legislator is that the highest revenue has to be obtained from the properties, which are let out either for lease or for licence. Therefore, in the absence of any legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitions. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.