High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 MAD CK 1588

Abdul Kalam Asad vs The Commissioner & Anr.

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · Decided on 9 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Victoria Gowri, J
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(MD)No.26011 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 336 words

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the petitioner, in respect of Shop No. 129, 36 situated in the New Bus Stand, Tirunelveli, is entitled to pay lease rental at the rate of Rs.140/- (Rupees One Hundred and Forty only) per sq.ft. per month, in terms of the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos 27248-27249 of 2023 dated 13.12.2023 and consequently declare that any demand made by the respondents for payment of rent at any rate higher than Rs.140/- per sq.ft. is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unenforceable.

2.

By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted Shop No.129, 36 in the New Bus Stand Complex, Tirunelveli, and the rent was fixed at Rs.225 per square foot. The issue relating to the fixation of rent was carried to the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.27248 of 2023. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the respondent Municipality revised the rent to Rs.140 per square foot in respect of the other shop owners. However, the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.

In response, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents Corporation, fairly submitted that the same benefit would also be extended to the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made, the respondent Municipality is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and extend to the petitioner the same rate of rent as has been fixed for the similarly placed shop owners, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.