The Madras High Court has fixed an ultimatum of one month for Latha Rajinikanth, wife of actor Rajinikanth, to give consent for enhancement of monthly rent from ₹3,702 to ₹21,160 for a shop taken on lease by her from Greater Chennai Corporation for running an overseas travel agency at C. P. Ramaswamy Road in Alwarpet here.
Dismissing her writ petition along with a batch of other similar cases that had challenged the enhancement, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said it would be open to the Corporation to auction the shops if the petitioners do not consent within a month. He made it clear that the lessees could remain in possession of shops only until the auction was notified.
“As there is a possibility that the petitioners may challenge the auction notice and continue to function in the same place on account of any litigation or interim order, and in order to avoid such circumstances, this court holds that once the auction notification is published... the respondents can enter the place with the help of police force, if required,” the judge added.
The petitioners had contended that it was unreasonable on the part of the Corporation to have enhanced the rent though the guideline value for the properties in the localities had been reduced by one-third. However, the judge rejected the argument stating that the guideline value could have been revised to avoid payment of higher compensation during acquisitions.
Petitions dismissed
“Thus, this court finds no merit in these writ petitions, which are therefore dismissed accordingly. It is up to the petitioners to accept the offer given by the respondent Corporation, since they have been in occupation of the premises for several years, failing which, the respondent Corporation shall go ahead with the auction,” the judge ordered.
In an affidavit filed on behalf of Ms. Rajinikanth, her authorised signatory Mohan Menon had accused the Corporation of having enhanced the monthly rent without any basis. The affidavit stated: “No method of calculation has been given as to how the Corporation of Chennai arrived at such an exorbitant figure.
“No yardstick has been followed. I submit that no expert committee was appointed or consulted by the Corporation officials... I state that my business has suffered from the recent demonetisation, GST (Goods and Services Tax) and general downward trend in the business. Further, online business has also increased the competition and I am somehow running this business on meagre margins.”
After receiving a notice from the Corporation with respect to enhancement of rent, the petitioner had claimed to have sent a reply refusing to accept the enhancement. Nevertheless, the zonal officer of the civic body ignored the reply and confirmed the proceedings issued by the Corporation, the petitioner claimed.
According to the zonal officer, the decision to enhance the rent was taken in consonance with the market price and in view of the completion of the lease period of nine years.
