AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—In this Writ petition filed in representative capacity, the writ Petitioners, who are the lessees or occupants of shops, blocks and open sittings at Nellai Netaji Bose Market, Tirunelveli Town, pray for the issue of writ of mandamus to forbear the Respondents Municipal Corporation from enforcing or collecting the enhanced rent or the licence fee for the use of the shops, blocks and open sittings by the Petitioners as set out in the annexure pursuant to the Resolution of the Municipal Corporation No. 527 dated 28.3.2000.
For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to deal with the various factual averments made on behalf of the Petitioners and it is sufficient to state that by virtue of the impugned resolution, the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation has sought to fix monthly rental for the shops for the year 2000-2001 on the basis of Rs. 12/-per square foot and that in the event of any of the existing occupants not agreeing for the said rate, their right to occupy shall be cancelled and the Corporation shall take possession and the shops will be leased out by way of public auction. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the said resolution and according to them, the increase was very steep and unreasonable and not in conformity with the policy of periodical increase of rent only by 15 per cent and that the requirement to pay one year advance was against the public policy and arbitrary.
Learned Special Government Pleader contends that the rental rate of Rs. 12/- per square foot was very reasonable considering the real market rate as prevailing now. The rents as at present had remained the same for several years without any revision and the Petitioners have no right to insist that only increase of 15 per cent should be given effect to. He would further contend that the Supreme Court and our High Court have consistently stressed that the Municipality and local bodies are entitled to augment their funds in a proper manner by conducting public auction. The Municipality will be able to secure higher rate of rent and only by way of sympathetic consideration of the existing occupants, Rs. 12/- per square foot was fixed as monthly rent. The requirement to deposit the rental amount was not towards advance, but only towards the rent and the lessees are not required to pay the monthly rent thereafter. This was only to avoid frequent defaults which are committed by most of the lessees.
As stated earlier, it is not necessary to consider the merits of the issues raised in the above writ petition. The conduct of the Petitioners in the present case disentitles them to pursue this writ petition. When this writ petition was admitted by N.V. Balasubramanian, J. the learned Judge by his order dated 31.5.2000 gave only a restricted interim order namely, that there will be a stay only in respect of payment of advance of one year rental amount. In other respects, it was specifically ordered as notice returnable by four weeks. Apparently not being satisfied with the restricted interim order, the Petitioners by describing themselves as Nellai Netaji Bose Market Vyaparigal Sangam, represented by its Secretary, U. Palavesam, had filed a suit in O.S. No. 280 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif. Tirunelveli and in that suit, an application in I.A. No. 333 of 2000 was also filed praying for an interim injunction against the Corporation without even disclosing about the pendency of this writ petition. Learned Special Government Pleader has rightly objected to the conduct of the Petitioners.
A perusal of the affidavit in this writ petition as well as before the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, shows that it is the very same person who has sworn to the affidavit in the writ petition and in the affidavit in I.A. No. 333 of 2000. In I.A. No. 333 of 2000 there is absolutely no whisper about the filing of this writ petition. The Plaintiffs'' Sangam is shown as 79th Petitioner and the deponent has been individually shown as 8th Petitioner in this writ petition. It is therefore, obvious and it is also not denied before me that all the individual writ Petitioners are also members of the said Sangam.
The conduct of the Petitioners is highly reprehensible and amounts not only to abuse of process of Court, but also a gross contempt of this Court. Such actions bring the authority of the Courts to ridicule. Filing of successive petitions in the very same or different Courts on the same cause of action has always been consistently held as deplorable and also as amounting to criminal contempt. The intensity of such illegal conduct becomes all the more aggravated when there is a deliberate suppression of the fact of the pendency of the proceedings before another Court. It is still worse that the parties should approach a Subordinate Court, later, after having failed to obtain an order to their liking from the High Court. This tendency on the part of the parties is on the rise recently and has to be put an end to, failing which the judicial hierarchy would become subject to disrespect and mockery. This is a well accepted principle and I would refer only to a few of the recent verdicts of the Supreme Court in this context.
In Suriyanath Singh v. Khedu Singh (1994 (3) S.C.C. 561 the first suit had been decreed against the Appellant and the second suit was filed contending that the earlier suit will not bind them and prayed for a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court held that the second suit amounted to an abuse of process of Court.
In Natwar Textile Process Limited v. Union of India 1995 (1) S.C.C.723 it was held that successive writ petitions on the same issue and obtaining different orders, should result in the dismissal of the appeal with costs of Rs. l5,000/-with interest at 18 per cent.
In State of Haryana and others Vs. K.N. Dutt, it was held that filing second writ petition without disclosure of the earlier proceedings was improper.
In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another, the Supreme Court dealt with the following situation. The order of the Supreme Court directing the party to deposit a specified amount with the Delhi Development Authority within one month was issued. The Respondent without making the payment, issued advertisement creating rights in favour of third parties and filed a suit on the original side of the High Court seeking permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority. Therefore, contempt proceedings were initiated and it was held that there was deliberate flouting of the Court''s orders and abuse of process and to obstruct due course of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court ordered six months simple imprisonment as punishment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. It was further ordered that all the properties and Bank account of the contemners shall stand attached. The following extract from the said judgment is relevant:
The filing of the Suit No. 770 of 1993 is nothing but a willful action on the part of the condemners to undermine the dignity of this Court and the majesty of law. The conduct of the condemners tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect or even disregard. It equally tends to interfere with or prejudice the litigants during the litigation. Abuse of the process of court calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a contempt of court.
In Parbathi Devi Jain v. Kedarlal Jain, 1995 (Supp) (4) SCC 574 the execution proceedings from an earlier decree was pending for disposal. The Respondent filed a separate suit and obtained an order of injunction against the execution petition from executing the decree. It was held that the conduct of the Plaintiff amounted to abuse of process of Court.
In Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh 1989 (8) S.C.C. 274 it was held that instituting the different proceedings in different for a within a short time making inconsistent allegations amounted to abuse of process and the parties were not entitled to any relief.
Therefore, the action of the Petitioners in having approached the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, is on the face of it an abuse of process of Court and clearly intended to undermine and to overcome the orders passed by the learned Judge of this Court declining to grant the interim order as prayed for by the Petitioners. As stated earlier, the said conduct had been consistently held also to be amounting to criminal contempt.
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-payable to the Respondents.
However, I am inclined to take notice of the fact that the writ petition having been filed in the representative capacity, there may be a few members who are really innocent and are not personally responsible for this episode. But they are definitely liable for the conduct of their Association. I feel that in the interest of justice, a relief may be provided to the Petitioners so that they may be enabled to duly represent their grievances to the concerned authorities. They have some grievance to express and according to them their representation has not been duly considered. Therefore, their representation has to be considered and dealt with by the authorities.
According to the Municipal Corporation the rate of Rs. 12/- per square foot is correctly fixed based on the prevailing market rate and it has to be verified as to whether the stand of the Municipal Corporation is correct. If the stand of the Municipal Corporation is found to be correct, the traders have no right to insist that they will not pay the rent at the market rate and they should be allowed to occupy the shops only at a low rent. The Municipality is entitled to augment its funds, and a lessee, whether under Municipal Corporation or a private individual has no right to squat on the property refusing to pay the market rate. If what the Corporation says is correct namely the rent has not been revised for several years due to the absence of an elected local body, that does hot give a vested right to the occupants to continue to occupy the premises at lesser rates. No one can claim permanent occupancy right and also on low rent.
I do not wish to say anything on the correctness or otherwise of the rate of rent fixed at Rs. 12/- per square foot, by the Corporation. The authorities have also to consider whether it was proper to fix uniform rent for different types of shops.
Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department may consider the representation of Association and pass a detailed order taking into account the materials to be produced by both sides and to record his conclusions as to whether fixation of Rs. 12/ per square foot reflects prevailing market value. In doing so, the said Secretary to the Government may bear in mind the following issues:
(i) To determine the prevailing market rate of rent per square foot.
(ii) Whether it would be proper to adopt the same rate of rent to the three different categories namely shops, blocks and open sittings and whether it would not be reasonable to adopt different rates for the three categories and if so what would be the reasonable market rate of rent for the three categories. It has to be borne in mind that the rental rates have to be based on the facilities made available and cannot be uniform for different categories, irrespective of such criteria.
In the enquiry, the Municipal Administration may be represented by the Commissioner and two officers while on the side of the traders, three representatives may appear. When once the Secretary to the Government passes the order on his enquiry it is for the Municipal Corporation to take such further steps as may be necessary.
The Petitioners may forward their representation to the said Secretary to the Government on or before 24th of this month and the said Secretary to the Government thereafter conduct an enquiry and pass orders within four weeks thereafter.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. l0,000/-. When the suit is taken up for hearing before the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, the Respondents are directed to bring to the notice of the learned District Munsif this order. Consequently, the connected W.M.P is closed as unnecessary.
The Petitioners will continue to pay the rent a the prescribed rate as at present and if there is going to be any deduction in the amount, the same may be adjusted for the future period.