ORDER : With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Subject matter of the writ petition is a small commercial shop, being Shop No.14 in a shopping complex in Brewary Road (Project III), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. 3. It is admitted that the writ petitioner is a lessee/tenant under the Madras Corporation (now Chennai Corporation) in respect of the above said shop No.14, which is hereinafter referred to as “demised shop” for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was inducted as a lessee of the demised shop in and by a lease deed dated 22.7.1998 and the rent at that point of time was Rs.1,155/- per month. 5. It is also not in dispute that the demised shop admeasures 100 sq. ft. 6. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has been paying rents regularly every month without default and that to his shock and surprise, he was slapped with a notice dated 28.12.2011 bearing reference No.Ni.Ma.Oo.Thu.Na.Ka.No.L-E2/Spl/2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity). In and by the impugned notice, the respondent Chennai Corporation demanded a sum of Rs.50,208/- from the writ petitioner towards the alleged rental arrears. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was never put on notice about any enhancement of rent. 8. Under the above said circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court. This Court passed an interim order dated 4.1.2012 to the effect that there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice on the writ petitioner paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the third respondent. It is not in dispute before me that the writ petitioner has also duly paid the said sum of Rs.10,000/- to the third respondent well before the date stipulated by this Court, i.e., before 19.1.2012. The interim order is now operating. 9. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the writ petitioner was put on notice about the enhancement of the rent? 10. Today, the respondent Chennai Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.4.2017. Obviously, the writ petitioner has not been put on notice as the averments of the Chennai Corporation in the counter affidavit 27.4.2017 are silent on this aspect. 11. 10. Today, the respondent Chennai Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.4.2017. Obviously, the writ petitioner has not been put on notice as the averments of the Chennai Corporation in the counter affidavit 27.4.2017 are silent on this aspect. 11. However, the Corporation would contend that there is a provision for periodical enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% once in three years and that is what is being claimed. 12. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that there is nothing to show that the Chennai Corporation has demanded periodic enhancement of rent once in three years. 13. On this aspect of the matter, Mrs.R.Meenal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance on one judgment of this Court, being P.S.Raghavachari Vs. The Special Officer, Corporation of Madras and others [1996-1-L.W. 402], for the principle that arrears of rent cannot be claimed after the limitation period of three years. 14. This Court also in the said judgment, making specific reference to Section 390-A of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, has held that the Chennai Corporation may not have right to do so. 15. Be that as it may, I have heard Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 16. In the light of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation, it may not be necessary to go into the aspect of limitation. The Chennai Corporation would now submit that the present enhanced rent is Rs.2,047/- per month + service tax at the rate of 15% (Rs.307/-), which adds to Rs.2,354/- per month. 17. It is also the further stand of the Chennai Corporation that the writ petitioner has paid the rent upto 30th April, 2017 without any arrears. In other words, it is the case of the Chennai Corporation that the writ petitioner has paid even the enhanced rent upto 30th April, 2017. 18. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the rent for the month of May, 2017 only remains to be paid now. 19. The submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, which are made on instructions, are recorded. 20. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 bearing reference Ni.Ma.Oo.Thu.Na.Ka.No.LE2/Spl/2005 is liable to be set aside as there is no arrears and is, accordingly, set aside. 21. 19. The submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, which are made on instructions, are recorded. 20. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 bearing reference Ni.Ma.Oo.Thu.Na.Ka.No.LE2/Spl/2005 is liable to be set aside as there is no arrears and is, accordingly, set aside. 21. More over, it is to be noted that the writ petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- pursuant to the interim order of this Court. It is not clear if credit is given for the same. If it has not been given, the respondent Chennai Corporation shall give credit for the same in future rents to be paid. 22. Therefore, the obtaining position now is that the prevailing rent is Rs.2,354/- (Rs.2047/- + service Tax at the rate of 15% - Rs.307/-) per month and the writ petitioner will continue to pay the rent at this rate until further enhancement, if any. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. Considering the nature of the matter, the parties are left to bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.