R. Subbiah, J.—The present Writ Appeals have been filed by the Municipal Commissioner as against the common order dated 09.09.2016, made in W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 11426 and 11428 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)Nos. 15550 and 15551 of 2016 respectively.
2. The case of the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals is that they have been allotted shop Nos. 5 and 4 respectively, at JVVT at Usilampatti Bus Stand on auction. Thereafter, they have paid the monthly rent regularly for the period from 29.06.1995 to 31.03.1996 to the appellant herein. In such circumstances, in order to fix the fair rent on par with the guidelines of the Public Works Department, they have filed civil suits before the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti. While so, the appellant passed a resolution on 14.10.1999 stating that the Municipality will charge the minimum monthly rent for the shops as that of the charges fixed by the Public Works Department. Since the said resolution was not given effect to, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals along with the other shop owners filed a suit in O.S.No. 75 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court at Usilampatti. In the said suit, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals have filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No. 22 of 2004. In the said Execution Petition, settlement was arrived at between them and a joint memo was filed, wherein it was agreed that by clause-11, there will be increase of 15% to Rs.100/- every year. Subsequent to the settlement, when the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals went to pay the monthly rent, the appellant refused to accept the rent as agreed in the execution proceedings. Hence, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals along with other shop owners filed Writ Petition Nos. 9637, 9638, 10880 and 10881 of 2005 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 12.09.2008, directed the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
3. In the meantime, the appellant demanded additional rent and issued notice to the first respondent herein without following the resolution No. 786. The same was challenged in W.P.Nos. 3464 to 3468 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 18.03.2010, granted an order of stay and on 24.03.2010 they have paid Rs.44,325/- pending from February, 2010. Finally, the said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 11.12.2013, directing them to approach the civil forum. Thereafter, they have paid the rent as per the terms of Clause 11 of the compromise application filed in E.P.No. 22 of 2004 through demand draft by registered post, but the appellant refused to accept the rent. Hence, along with other shop owners, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals filed suits in O.S.Nos. 94 and 93 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti. While so, the appellant sent a notice dated 05.04.2016, requesting them to pay huge amount as arrears of rent. They immediately approached the appellant and requested them to abide the verdict of E.P.No. 22 of 2004 and they also undertook to pay the arrears if any on completion and subject to the outcome of the suits in O.S.Nos. 94 and 93 of 2014. Thereafter, the matter went smoothly and they have been regularly paying the rent. When that being so, the appellant entered into the shop of the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals and locked the shutter and put up seal on the lock and pasted the order dated 09.08.2016. Those orders were under challenge in the Writ Petitions.
4. Pending Writ Petitions, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals filed applications in W.M.P.(MD)No. 11426 and 11428 of 2016 respectively seeking a direction to the second respondent herein to direct the third respondent to remove the seal and lock in the first respondent shop in both the Writ appeals bearing Nos. 5 and 4 respectively, at JVVT, Usilampatti Bus Stand, Usilampatti, Madurai District. In the said Miscellaneous Petitions, this Court, by order dated 09.09.2016, has directed the appellant herein to remove the lock and seal of shops of the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals bearing Nos. 5 and 4, at JVVT, Usilampatti Bus Stand, Usilampatti Town, Madurai District, subject to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- each by the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Questioning the same, the appellant is before this Court with the present Writ Appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order mainly based on the compromise entered into between the parties in E.P.No. 22 of 2004 in O.S.No. 75 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Usilampatti. In this regard, the learned counsel, by inviting the attention of this Court to the decree passed in O.S.No. 75 of 2000, submitted that the learned District Munsif has passed a decree, directing the appellant to implement the resolution No. 786, dated 14.10.1999, but, whereas, in E.P.No. 22 of 2004, without the knowledge of the Municipality, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality filed a memorandum of compromise with the first respondent in these appeals and others by fixing a rent before the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti and in the said memorandum of compromise, the appellant has not signed and hence, the same will not bind on them. Moreover, the compromise entered into between the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals is contrary to the decree passed in the said suit. Actually, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals were in occupation of the shops only based on the license.
The licence period came to an end as early as in the year 1996 itself. Now, they are trying to squat on the property by filing vexatious petitions one after another. It is further submitted that the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals have to pay a sum of Rs.8,88,240 and Rs.13,33,200/- towards arrears of rent. Therefore, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge to remove the lock and seal subject to payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each is not sustainable in law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Countering the said submission, the learned counsel for the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals submitted that the learned Single Judge passed an order based on the compromise entered in the Execution Proceedings and, therefore, no infirmity could be found in the said order. Furthermore, the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals also filed W.P.Nos. 3464 to 3468 of 2010 challenging the notice issued by the appellant demanding arrears by fixing more rent and the same were disposed of by this Court directing the parties to approach the civil forum. Thereafter, they filed civil suits in O.S.Nos. 94 and 93 of 2014 and they have been regularly paying monthly rent, but the appellant refused to receive the same. While so, the appellant sent a notice dated 05.04.2016 requesting them to pay huge amount as arrears of rent. The first respondent in both the Writ Appeals approached the appellant and requested them to abide the verdict of E.P.No. 22 of 2004 and undertook to pay the arrears if any subject to the outcome of the suits in O.S.Nos. 94 and 93 of 2014. But, suddenly, to the shock and surprise, the appellant forcibly entered into the shop and locked the shutter and put up the seal. Questioning the same, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted an order of interim direction subject to certain conditions pending disposal of the Writ Petitions. The same need not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
7. We have considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
8. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, a suit in O.S.No. 75 of 2000 was filed by the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals, in which, a direction was given to the appellant to give effect to the resolution No. 786, dated 14.10.1999, but whereas, contrary to the same, in the execution proceedings in E.P.No. 22 of 2004, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality filed a joint compromise memo with regard to fixation of rent. The said compromise memo did not contain the signature of the appellant and it was made without the knowledge of the Municipality. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the memorandum of compromise entered into between the Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the first respondent will not bind on the appellant. Moreover, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 11.12.2013, made in W.P.Nos. 3464 to 3468 of 2010, disposed of the Writ Petitions with liberty to the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals to approach the Civil Forum. In fact, civil suits have also been filed by the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals and no interim order was granted in the said suits. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the action taken by the Municipality. Moreover, it is a licence granted in favour of the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals and not a lease as contended and it came to an end as early as in the year 1996. The first respondent in both the Writ Appeals, by filing petitions one after another, tried to squat on the property.
Therefore, absolutely, we do not find any infirmity in the action taken by the appellant to put up lock and seal. In view of our finding, the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant to remove lock and seal of the shop Nos. 5 and 4, at JVVT, Usilampatti Bus Stand, Usilampatti Town, Madurai District, on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- each by the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals is liable to be set aside.
9. In fine, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the common order dated 09.09.2016, made in W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 11426 and 11428 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)Nos. 15550 and 15551 of 2016 respectively, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
