Remanded

A.Abdul Sathar, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Dec 2015WP/32685/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ to prevent the municipality from interfering with his possession of a building. The court observed the petitioner was recognized as a licensee via an 1990 order. It restrained the respondent from forcible dispossession but permitted future legal action by the municipality following due process.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is prevented from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner; the respondent is at liberty to take action against the petitioner by following due process of law.

A.Abdul Sathar, Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WP.No.32685 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1&2 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

A.Abdul Sathar .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi .. Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his men, agents, servants or any other persons claiming under him from in any manner interfering with petitioner's possession of the building put up by petitioner in the 600 sq.ft., of land situate at Venkatesa Colony, Reservoir Road, Pollachi.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar MD.Abdullah For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas ORDER

¶9

Heard Mr.I.Abrar MD.Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and by their consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

The petitioner seeks for a issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent from in any manner interfering with the possession of the building put up by him to an extent of 600 sq.ft in the land situate at Venkatesa Colony, Reservoir Road, Pollachi.

¶11

The petitioner's case is that he is a lessee of the respondent having been granted an order dated 09.11.1990 and he has been carrying on business in the said area. The petitioner

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

has produced documents to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the premises and has been remitting professional tax, water tax etc., The respondent now seeks to evict the petitioner on the ground that they are going to renovate the market area and put up proper platform and adequate roofing, so as to facilitate not only the traders but also the consumers.

¶14

Though in the counter, a stand has been taken that the petitioner is not a direct tenant of the municipality and the lessee is one Sankar Parameswaran and there is no direct contract between the petitioner and the respondent, this averment is not supported by any document.

¶15

On the contrary, the order dated 09.11.1990 issued by the respondent served on the petitioner shows that the petitioner has been recognized as a licensee/lessee. Therefore, if at all action has to be initiated against the petitioner, it should be only in accordance with law.

¶16

Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of by preventing the respondent from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner. However the respondent is at liberty to take action against the petitioner by following due process of law. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-IV) /TRUE COPY/ SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR nvi

¶18

To:

¶19

The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi

¶20

+1 CC to MR.P.Srinivas Advocate. SR.NO. 66656 +1 CC to MR.R.Subramanian Advocate. SR.NO. 66672

¶21

WP.No.32685 of 2013

¶22

AR-IV

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Abdul Sathar, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdul Sathar, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ceedeeyes Standard Towers Vs the Collector of Chennai

Mr. D.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Special Commissioner

Swami Matriculation School Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

M.Manickam Vs the Presiding Officer

A.Francis, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

The Pondicherry Market Vs Union Territory of Puducherry