Allowed

R.L.Dhanapal, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC4 Sept 2019WP/29476/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the withholding of rental arrears by TASMAC. The court found that TASMAC was aware of eviction proceedings and incorrectly adjusted tenant losses against rent, ordering the refund of withheld amounts.

What did the court decide?

The amount of Rs.13,98,085/- withheld from rent shall be returned within four weeks, and arrears of rents shall be remitted forthwith.

R.L.Dhanapal, Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.29476 of 2012 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶7

R.L.Dhanapal .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, TASMAC 4^th Floor CMDA Tower II Gandhi Irvin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The District Manager [North], TASMAC Ltd., TASCO Unit, B4 Flats, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58. 3.The District Manager, Chennai [Central], TASMAC Ltd., 29/2, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai-93. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the 3^rd Respondent letter Vide Na.Ka.No.D1/406/2009 dated 11.05.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd Respondent to pay the rental arrears up to the month September 2012 is sum of Rs.10,24,650/with 12% interest and feature monthly rents to the Petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar (for R1 & R3) Standing Counsel Mr.P.Arumugarajan (for R2) Standing Counsel

¶9

The petitioner challenges letter dated 11.05.2012 which has been sent by the 2^nd respondent in reply to the legal notice

¶10

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

¶11

issued by the petitioner on 14.04.2012.

¶12

2.The admitted facts are as follows:

¶13

(i) The petitioner is a lessee of shops at Door Nos.164, 165 and 172 ('premises in question') at the Victoria Public Hall ('VP Hall') Compound near the Central Station, belonging to the Corporation of Chennai ('Corporation').

¶14

(ii) The shops had been sub-leased by the petitioner to the respondents in accordance with the terms of lease, for running TASMAC bars from January 2004.

¶15

(iii) Separately the petitioner had also entered into a lease with TASMAC, specifically the 3^rd respondent, for leasing out one shop situated at Koyambedu for running a TASMAC bar.

¶16

(iv) Proceedings were initiated by the Corporation of Chennai for termination of the lease and the Corporation informed the 1^st respondent by letter dated 10.08.2009 that the Victoria Public Hall was being renovated, that notice of eviction for the purpose of such renovation has been served on the shop on 07.08.2009, and calling upon them to vacate the premises by 13.08.2009.

¶17

3.By letter dated 11.08.2009, the 2^nd respondent responded to the aforesaid letter confirming receipt of the same and requesting that since it was difficult to find suitable private buildings for the use of TASMAC in that area, five alternate Corporation shops may be allotted to TASMAC as a special case, particularly since they are a Government agency.

¶18

4.The Corporation, as per plan, demolished the premises in question on 06.11.2009.

¶19

5.It appears that the some damage had been caused on account of the demolition. The damage was quantified by TASMAC at a sum of Rs.17,78,275/-, the breakup being as follows:

¶20

t/vz;/	kJghdf; fil vz;/	05/11/2009 ,ut[ 10/00 kzp tpw;gidf;F gpd; kJghd tiffspd; ,Ug;g [ kjpg;g[	kJghd tiffspd; kjpg;g[ (06/11/2006 md;W kPl;fg;gl;l) (U:gha;)	kJghd tiffspd; kjpg;g[ (ec&;lk; mile;j (U:gha;)
1/	164	7.07.275	5.66.295	1.40.980
2/	165	6.93.785	2.08.600	4.85.185
3/	167	11.28.210	7.48.020	3.80.190
4/	172	10.31.315	2.59.395	7.71.920
bk; ;[	hj;j kjpg;g[	35.60.585	17.82.310	17.78.275

¶21

6.The property at serial No.3 above is stated to belong to

¶22

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

¶23

a third party and hence is not relevant to arrive at the computation of the alleged loss. The total loss allegedly suffered on account of damage to the stock in the premises in question amounts to a sum of Rs.13,98,085/-.

¶24

7.According to the respondents, this loss is to be borne by the petitioner, whereas according to the petitioner the respondents have been put to notice of and are fully aware of the proceedings initiated by the Corporation for eviction and ought to have vacated premises as per the request of the Corporation.

¶25

8.The respondents proceeded to adjust the alleged loss by withholding the rent payable by TASMAC in respect of the Koyambedu shop. The rents were withheld till 04.11.2016, when a sum of Rs.9,11,350/- was admittedly paid by TASMAC to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.15,37,750/- withheld, that included an amount towards the installation of grill gate and recovery of rental advance. Though the petitioner states the rent subsequent to 04.11.2016, till date has not been remitted, learned counsel for the respondents has no instructions in this regard.

¶26

9.It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that I am to decide upon the validity or otherwise of communication dated 11.05.2005.

¶27

10.The impugned communication reads as follows:

¶28

'lh!;khf; ypl; brd;id kj;jpak; khtl;lk; kJghd rpy;yiw tpw;gid fil vz;/406?d; fl;ol chpikahsh; jpU/Mh;/vy;/ jdghy; mth;fspd; fl;ol thlif bjhifapid gpoj;jk; bra;J itj;jpUf;Fk; bjhifapid brYj;j nfl;L tHf;Fiu"h; jpU/uh$nrfud; mth;fs; 14/04/2012 ehspl;l nehl;lP!; bgwg;gl;L fPH;fhQqk; fhuz';fSf;fhf jpU/Mh;/vy;/ jdghy; mth;fspd; 406?d; fl;ol thlif bjhifapid gpoj;jk; bra;J epYitapy; itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gija[k; bjhptpf;fpnwd;/

¶29

1/ brd;id tlf;F khtl;lj;jpy; ,a';fp te;j kJghd rpy;yiw tpw;gid fil vz;/164. 165. 172 Mfpa fl;ol chpikahsuhd jpU/Mh;/vy;/ jdghy; filia fhyp bra;J 7 ehl;fSf;Fs; xg;gilf;Fk;go brd;id khefuhl;rp Mizah; mth;fs; 05/08/2009 cj;jut[ K:yk; bjhptpj;jij lh!;khf; khtl;l eph;ghfj;jplk; kiwj;J 6/11/2009 filpaid ,oj;jjpy; lh!;khf; eph;thfj;jpw;F Vw;gl;l ec&;lj;jpw;F bghWg;ghfpwhh;/

¶30

2/ jpU/Mh;/vy;/ jdghy; mth;fs; kPJ rl;lg;go eltof;if nkw;bfhs;s Kd;dhs; lh!;khf; tHf;Fiu"h; jpU/b$/utpe;jud; mth;fs; 10/08/2010 md;W rl;l fUj;Jiu tH';fp jdpahh; kPJ mry; tHf;F bjhluyhk; vd;W Twpa [s;shh;/

¶31

3/ khtl;l nkyhsh; (tlf;F) mth;fspy; 19/01/2010 md;W bgwg;gl;l fojj;jpy; 406?d; fl;ol chpikahsh; jpU/Mh;/vy;/jdghy; mth;fspd; fl;ol

¶32

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

¶33

thlifia epWj;jp itf;Fk;go mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/

¶34

4/ nkYk; jw;nghija lh!;khf; tHf;fwp"h; jpU/v!;/Kj;Juh$; mth;fsplKk; jpU/Mh;/vy;/jdghy; mth;fs; kPJ mry; tHf;F bjhlu. Mtz bra;a[k;go khtl;l nkyhsh; (tlf;F) mth;fshy; 3/09/2011 md;W fojk; K:yk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/

¶35

nkw;Twpa fhuz';fSf;fhf jpU/Mh;/vy;/jdghy; mth;fspd; 406? filapd; thlif epWj;jp epYitapy; itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gij ,g;gjpy; fojk; K:yk; md;g[ld; bjhptpj;J bfhs;fpnwd;/ '

¶36

As per the above response, the adjustment of rents is made on the ground that the respondents were not aware of the proceedings taken by the Corporation for eviction of the TASMAC shops; that notice dated 05.08.2009 was not sent to them and thus the consequent demolition on 06.11.2009 took them surprise. This is factually incorrect as the counter filed by the 2^nd respondent admits, at para-4, that letter dated 10.08.2009 sent by the District Officer and extracted below was received by them on 14.09.2009. Letter dated 10.08.2009 reads as follows:

¶37

'From To The Districtict Revenue Officer, The District Manager, (North), Land and Estates Department, TASMAC, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. Chennai-3.

¶38

____________________________________________________L&E.D.C.No.LE4/3489/09 Dated 10.08.2009.

¶39

Sir,

¶40

Sub: Corporation of Chennai – Land and Estates Department - V.P. Hall Building situated in P.H.Road – Renovation work

¶41

campus of

¶42

to be started – Shops located within the V.P.Hall to be evicted. Reg.

¶43

It has been decided by the Corporation of Chennai, to renovate the historical monument building of V.P.Hall. It is noted that some shops are being run by TASMAC within the campus of the V.P. Hall Building. Notices of eviction are served to the above shops on 7.8.09 stating to vacate the premises by 13.8.09. Hence it is requested to vacate the above said premises immediately.

¶44

District Revenue Office/L&E

¶45

Copy to

¶46

1.Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Chennai – for necessary follow up action

¶47

2.The Managing Director, TASMAC for favour of information'

¶48

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

¶49

In the light of the fact that the aforesaid letter has been received by the respondents, admittedly, they cannot be seen to state that they were not aware of the eviction proceedings.

¶50

13.The reply of the Corporation dated 11.08.2009 further reveals clearly the respondents were well aware of the proceedings initiated by the Corporation. This is what they state:

¶51

'TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED

¶52

B-4, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI-600 058.

¶53

From To Thiru.S.Somupandian, M.A.B.L., The Commissioner, District Manager/Deputy Collector, Corporation of Chennai, TASMAC Ltd., Rippon Building, Chennai North, Chennai. Chennai-600 058. Rc.B6/1057/2009 dated 11.08.2009. Respected Sir, Sub: TASMAC – Retail Vending - Corporation of Chennai – Land & Estate Department - V.P. Hall Building Situated in P.H.Road – Renovation work to be started – TASMAC R.V.Shops located within the campus of V.P.Hall to be Evicted – alternate shops for accommodating TASMAC Shops under eviction process – requested. Ref: DRO/G.M.(R.V.) TASMAC, Egmore, Chennai-8 Lr.No.R3/11608/2009 dated 10.08.2009.

¶54

I submit that being given to understand that the Corporation of Chennai has decided to renovate the Historical Monument Building of V.P.Hall and TASMAC Retail Vending Shops No.164, 165, 167, 172 located within the Campus of the above said Hall are to be evicted, alternate buildings to shift the above said TASMAC shops are to be identified.

¶55

2.It has been found very difficult to find suitable private buildings in and around the above said TASMAC shops, I request that any other five Corporation shops located in the vicinity of the above said TASMAC Retail Vending Shops may be allotted to us a special case as TASMAC is a Government Agency.

¶56

Yours faithfully,

¶57

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

¶58

District Manager Chennai North.

¶59

Copy submitted to The District Revenue Officer/General Manager (R.V.), TASMAC, Chennai-8.”

¶60

Thus it is clear that TASMAC was well aware of the proposals to evict the existing lessees from the premises and is to take full blame for the loss, if any caused to them, by the demolition. Adjustment of the alleged loss from the rent for the Koyambedu property is, in my considered view, wholly incorrect and inappropriate in the aforesaid circumstances. Moreover, it is clear from paragraphs-2 and 3 of the impugned reply that the legal advice received by TASMAC is only to proceed against the petitioner by way of an appropriate remedy such as a Civil Suit.

¶61

15.This writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶62

(i) The amount withheld by the respondents, Rs.13,98,085/-, shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶63

(ii) The arrears of rents, if any, will be remitted forthwith in accordance with the agreed lease terms.

¶64

The petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the action of the respondents to withhold amounts over and above Rs.13,98,085/- (since Rs.15,37,750/- has been withheld) in accordance with law.

¶65

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶68

//True copy//

¶69

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶70

¶71

¶72

1.The Managing Director,

¶73

TASMAC

¶74

4^th Floor CMDA Tower II Gandhi Irvin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶75

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

¶76

2.The District Manager [North], TASMAC Ltd., TASCO Unit, B4 Flats, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58. 3.The District Manager, Chennai [Central], TASMAC Ltd., 29/2, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai-93. +1cc to Mr.K.Ramu, Advocate SR.No.77072 +1cc to Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR.No.76600 W.P.No.29476 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 SV(CO) GMY(12/09/2019)

¶77

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

R.L.Dhanapal, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.L.Dhanapal, v. the Managing Director

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

R.Elumalai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Soundararajan, Vs the Director

N. Udayakumar Vs the District Collector

Kantilal N. Shah Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Filaments & Windings Vs the Principal Commissioner

M/s.Sutherland Global Services Vs Assistant Commissioner Cgst