IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.14919 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.Kalpesh Steel House Rep. By its Proprietor, Amrit T.Doshi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 2.The Vice-Chairman Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 4.The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in letter No.S1/439/2009 dated 12.03.2009 on the file of the 4th respondent and subsequent notice dated 27.07.2009 in letter No.S1/439/2009 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondent to reconsider the price of plot as per clause 8(b) of the lease cum sale agreement dated 27.03.1991. (Prayer amended as per order dated 10.08.09 by KVJ in M.P.No.2/09 in W.P.No.14919/09) For petitioner : Mr.P.R.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Kalpesh Steel House. As per the amended prayer, he seeks to quash the notice dated 12.03.2009 issued by the 4th respondent Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short CMDA) and subsequent notice dated 27.07.2009 and after setting aside the same seeking for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the price of the plot in terms of paragraph 8(b) of the Lease-cum-sale Agreement dated 27.03.1991. 2. When the matter came up on 30.07.2009, the petitioner took time to file a petition to amend the prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly, the original prayer seeking for a direction was amended vide M.P.No.2 of 2009 dated 10.08.2009. This Court directed private notices to be issued to the respondents on the same day. 3. Pending the notice, this Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from allotting Plot No.357 at Sathangadu Iron and Steel Market to any other person pending disposal of the writ petition. The said interim order came to be extended subsequently by successive orders. 4. On notice from this Court, the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.02.2010. It is agreed by the fourth respondent that the CMDA had entered into Lease-cum-Sale Agreement with the petitioner. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner will have to pay instalments as per the schedule executed by the petitioner dated 27.03.1991. The petitioner has taken possession of the plot on 10.10.1991. Subsequently, by a letter dated 02.12.1993, CMDA issued notice to the petitioner as to why his allotment should not be cancelled for non-payment of 4th and 5th instalments. Again, by a letter dated 24.07.1992, a Show Cause Notice was sent for non-payment of three consecutive instalments. Thereafter, the petitioner paid 4th and 5th instalments on 29.09.1992. When he did not pay further instalments, a further show cause notice dated 05.12.1993 was issued. Since the petitioner failed to remit the instalments even after giving an opportunity, the cancellation order was issued by a letter dated 15.12.1992. However, a final opportunity was given to him to pay the cost at the revised rate of Rs.6450/- per sq.mtr on 11.03.2009. It was contended that right from the date of allotment, the petitioner was a defaulter. 5. The petitioner relied upon paragraph 8(b) of the Lease-cum- Sale Agreement, wherein it is stated that the lessor or vendor may at his discretion accept belated payment of instalments with interest at 18% per annum for the delayed period and there is no scope for cancellation. The petitioner contended that there is no scope for revising the rate fixed for the plot. In the impugned order it was stated that the petitioner being a defaulter in payments of the instalments, it gave an opportunity to restore his allotment at the revised cost at the rate of Rs.6456/- per sq.mtr for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner questioning the same had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that there is no scope for revision of the cost. 6. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that along with the petitioner, 84 allotments were cancelled and for restoration of allotments, revised rates were insisted upon. Infact the petitioner had lost the status of an original allottee and therefore, he cannot contend that there is no scope for revised rate. 7. Whatever may be the circumstances of the case, the 4th respondent CMDA though had power to reserve, modify or stipulate additional conditions but with reference to final allotment, regarding quantum towards payment of plot price and maintenance charges will be done only in consultation with the lessee/purchaser through their association. In the meeting held on 30.09.2008 between the Monitoring Sub-committee and the traders, in paragraph 6 of the minutes, the traders Association had agreed to collect from the defaulters simple interest. In the subsequent meeting held on 19.12.2008, they have agreed to take up the issue of penal interest with the authorities. Therefore, the 4th respondent CMDA could have cancelled the allotment of the petitioner on the basis of default in payments. But instead of cancelling the allotment, they want to accommodate the petitioner. 8. In this context, it is necessary to refer to paragraph 17 of the Lease-cum-sale agreement wherein it is stipulated as follows:- "7.The Lessor/Vendor in the interest of the scheme, reserves the right to modify or stipulate additional conditions while making final allotment except the terms and quantum relating to payment of plot price and maintenance charges, in consultation with the Lessee/Purchaser through their Association. " (Emphasis added) Hence, the petitioner's contention that as a matter of right, can hold onto the plot without agreeing to revised rates is not supported by the terms of allotment. 9. The petitioner's reliance placed upon paragraph 8(b) of the agreement is misconceived because as a defaulter, he had lost his right to hold onto the plot allotted to him and unless he agrees for the revised rate, there is no obligation for the 4th respondent CMDA to provide any further indulgence. It is for the petitioner to accept the revised offer or face the risk of cancellation. Certainly, in a matter of this nature, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot grant any relief as the terms between the petitioner and the respondents are purely contractual and the petitioner was admittedly a defaulter in payment of the instalments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 2.The Vice-Chairman Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 4.The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. 1 cc to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate, Sr.No.40580 1 cc to Mr.P.R.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.40267 order in W.P.No.14919 of 2009 SP {CO} TP/17.6.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/